Skip to footer

Four reasons why Obama's critics on Syria have it wrong

When President Obama announced earlier this month that he would put aside plans for military strikes against the regime of Bashar al-Assad Syria and instead pursue Russian President Vladimir Putin’s diplomatic option on chemical weapons, many observers believed that Mr. Putin won a great victory. They felt Mr. Obama looked weak and that he lost badly.

There is no question that Obama disappointed the Syrian opposition and their supporters who hoped for immediate air strikes. But critics who say Obama lost foreign-policy ground on the Syria crisis have it just plain wrong. Answering his critics at a United Nations buzzing with Iran’s apparent willingness to negotiate, Obama’s speech to the General Assembly Sept. 24 confirmed that the United States has not altered its foreign-policy priorities. The president insisted on firm action by the UN Security Council to ensure not only Syrian chemical disarmament but also the creation of a new, peaceful, and inclusive Syrian government.

Here are four reasons why Obama’s foreign-policy critics on Syria are mistaken.

1. Underestimate the importance of dismantling chemical weapons in Syria

Mary Altaffer/AP
President Obama speaks during the 68th session of the General Assembly at the United Nations in New York Sept. 24. Op-ed contributor Edward Haley writes: 'Obama’s speech to the General Assembly yesterday confirmed that the United States has not altered its foreign-policy priorities. It insisted on firm action by the UN Security Council to ensure not only Syrian chemical disarmament but the creation of a new, peaceful, and inclusive Syrian government.'

The critics misjudge the importance of dismantling Syrian chemical weapons and the impact this move will have on the conflict there. Obama did not bow to the Assad regime and Russia, its principal ally. Rather, the threat of American missile attacks forced Assad to accept international destruction of his chemical weapons, and Obama was pragmatic enough to accept that result and call off the strikes.

Removing chemical weapons from Assad’s grasp weakens the Syrian government in two important ways. It removes the threat that the weapons will be used against the opposition in the future, and it denies the Assad regime one of its most potent weapons on the battlefield. It is hard to see how that strengthens Assad or Russia. 

Edward Haley is director of the Center for Human Rights Leadership and W.M. Keck Foundation Professor of International Strategic Studies at Claremont McKenna College.

1 of 4
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.