Is Syria Stalling for Time?

On Monday, an off-the-cuff remark by Secretary of State John Kerry prompted a drastic twist in the buildup to intervention in Syria. When asked by a reporter whether Syria could take any steps to avert Western military strikes, Kerry answered in a not fully serious manner that Assad would need to "turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community". In a surprising move, Russian President Vladimir Putin seized the opportunity and expressed interest in such a non-violent resolution to the tension, should Syrian President Bashar al-Assad be willing. Assad, to a greater or lesser extent a client of the Russian regime, obviously agreed eagerly and caused a lot of headaches in the Obama administration. The prospect of a negotiated solution is at odds with the bellicose rhetoric to date.

But isn’t this just a stalling tactic? Is it not just a way for the murderous Assad regime to buy time to protect their more vital assets from the looming American strike? Is it not just Putin thumbing his nose at American foreign policy, stirring up uncertainty at no cost to himself?

Short answer: Yes. It remains to be seen just how willing Russia will be to accept a meaningfully binding resolution in the United Nations Security Council. Having already rejected a French proposal assigning blame to the Syrian regime for the chemical attacks, it is unclear whether Russia is entering into the talks in good faith. Furthermore, the logistics of outside observers overseeing the elimination of Syria’s dispersed chemical weapons stocks during wartime is nightmarish. UN inspectors investigating last month’s attacks came under fire on multiple occasions—with little way to determine whether rebel forces were responsible or if the regime’s own troops were trying to scare them away. This is an effort to draw things out in hopes of putting the regime on favorable footing in the event that strikes move forward.

However, American interests and Obama’s foreign policy would best be served by pursuing this diplomatic route, even should it fall apart. A refusal from Syria to go through with the process would further isolate it from the international community and increase international willingness to take meaningful action, likely drawing the UK and others back to America’s side. Though it would be unlikely to sway Russia or China to accepting UNSC authorization for the use of force, any action would have far greater international legitimacy for having seriously attempted a negotiated solution.

It is important to note that the additional time for Syria to attempt to shield their more important assets is meaningless. The chemical weapon stocks themselves were already widely dispersed and any strikes on them would have likely carried the gasses into the surrounding areas. The targets more likely to be struck—those that enable the regime to carry out the conflict: transportation and communications infrastructures; fuel/ammunition depots; airbases; etc.—are simply not going to be sufficiently hardened to withstand the full weight of American military force in the next months. The only concern we should have about the wait is that it may occasion a repeat use of the chemical weapons by the Assad regime. A true humanitarian tragedy, but something that would again solidify international consensus for action.

If anything, the proposal has saved the Obama administration from serious embarrassment. The authorization of the use of military force put forward in Congress has grown increasingly unpopular as, surprise surprise, the prospect of another war in the Middle East rallied public opinion against intervention. While not exactly war weary, the masses lack much enthusiasm for putting Americans in harm’s way for a matter so tangential to their interests. This does offer the diplomatic route some trouble, unfortunately, as the best way to keep Syria serious about destroying their stockpiles is for the credible use of overwhelming force to be the only alternative.

Obama has sometimes been ridiculously awful about controlling the narrative on his policies since his election in 2008, but this could turn out very well for him. He should pursue diplomacy and see where it takes him. Should the effort be successful, his handling of the conflict would be a major boost to his increasingly-derided foreign policy.