"President Obama’s decision to seek congressional approval for military action in Syria has been applauded by many observers—including, for example, our own Amy Davidson. But in such a complex situation, even what may appear to be the best move is fraught with pitfalls. “I think he’s boxed himself in—left, right, and center—with a set of options that he’s very unhappy with, and rightly so, because they’re bad,” Philip Gourevitch says. The President has yet to provide any convincing arguments for how the U.S. can be effective in stopping the atrocities in Syria, and it’s still not even totally clear what he would do if Congress votes not to intervene. (Deputy national-security adviser Tony Blinken did tell NPR on Friday that Obama has no “intention to use that authority absent Congress backing him,” but the President hasn’t answered that question directly himself.) Gourevitch and John Cassidy join host Dorothy Wickenden on this week’s Political Scene podcast to discuss how we got to the brink of intervention and what other options might still be available to the President.
“Everything about him and his entire history would suggest that he would much rather be going down the U.N., multilateral route,” Cassidy says. Gourevitch, who has written about the United Nations, agrees, and adds, “There’s a lot that hasn’t been done,” namely leveraging diplomatic pressure against China in order to better negotiate with Russia. “It looks to me like, so far in his Presidency, Obama’s big mistake,” Gourevitch says."
No comments:
Post a Comment