President Obama’s bombing allies
promptly invoked "America’s credibility" and "global security" as key reasons why
Congress should vote for his resolution to punish Assad.
Their script has a timeless, polished
ring, and for a good reason. It was first articulated by Henry Kissinger during
the bloody closing years of the Vietnam War—quibbling publicly over the war
aims of the President weakens America’s great power credibility. The president
of the day must be able to demonstrate his capacity to act as ruthlessly as
those tyrants who don’t bother with student protests and independently elected
legislative bodies.
American patriots generally don’t give
a damn what others think of their intemperate political culture. On the possible
use of US military force, however, theater is as important as substance. The
President mustn’t lose face in the great and lesser foreign capitals that get
attention in Washington.
This is a ridiculously quaint perspective.
Few outside America recognize America’s
vital interest in Syria and are hardly surprised that most Americans can’t
see one either.
Today, America’s credibility—its
ability to intimidate adversaries and rally friends—has little to do with maintaining
a rickety bipartisan assertion that the US is accountable for orderly progress
in the Middle East. More to the point, the health of its reputation
internationally has a lot more to do with Washington and Obama’s capacity to
improve domestic affairs, significantly.
In his first term, Obama was audacious
domestically. Now he’s spending his political capital on a small piece of
America’s global agenda.
John McCain and fellow Republican hawks
want Obama to appeal directly to Americans for support so their votes for war
will be less unpopular. Obama would better serve his legacy—and America’s
international reputation—if he were more ambitious and persuasive on such
issues as immigration, tax, and entitlement reform.
The New
York Times today includes an embarrassing story about Obama’s year-long
fret over how to nominate successfully Larry
Summers as the next chair of the US federal reserve.
Nowhere in the story is it mentioned
that this nomination is probably more important and more concerning
internationally than the President’s plans to punish Assad or elect more
Democrats in next year’s Congressional elections. Yet none of Obama’s allies
point out that the Senate would be doing America and the world economy serious
harm if it denied the nomination of Larry Summers.
No comments:
Post a Comment