When a gaffe is an opportunity
by digby
Earlier I posted about this piece in the Atlantic proposing that the government ask "What would the Godfather do?" in trying to solve the Syrian problem. In it the author mentioned this in passing:
Obama’s self-confidence in rejecting what most advisers thought had already been decided—immediate military action—reminds one of JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when he refused to choose between what the system insisted were the two, and only two, alternatives: attack or acquiesce.
I have been willing to give President Obama credit for obviously not wanting to rush into this war. Pulling the plug at the last minute on what everyone acknowledges was a decision to start bombing was pretty surprising and it proves to me that this isn't something he wants to do. Like JFK, he's skeptical of the bombing hawks, although it likely comes from a different place. (JFK got personally burned by the Bay of Pigs. Obama originally got elected largely because of his opposition to Iraq.)
But remember how the Cuban Missile Crisis was eventually averted (at least according to the legend)? The Kennedy administration took advantage of what was said to be a miscommunication by the Soviets who'd sent two different proposals for ending the stand-off. The US behaved as if they'd only seen the second proposal (which they could live with) instead of the proposal that would lead to war. It was the closest we ever came to nuclear conflagration and it was resolved by taking advantage of a gaffe.
Perhaps this one will offer a similar way out:
A seemingly offhand suggestion by Secretary of State John Kerry that Syria could avert an American attack by relinquishing its chemical weapons received an almost immediate welcome from Syria, Russia, the United Nations, a key American ally and even some Republicans on Monday as a possible way to avoid a major international military showdown in the Syria crisis. A White House official said the administration was taking a “hard look” at the idea.
While there was no indication that Mr. Kerry was searching for a political settlement to the Syrian crisis in making his comment, Russia — the Syrian government’s most powerful supporter — seized on it as a way of proposing international control of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal.
The reactions appeared to reflect a broad international desire to de-escalate the atmosphere of impending confrontation even as President Obama was lobbying heavily at home to garner Congressional endorsement of a military strike.
Mr. Kerry’s suggestion — and the Russian and Syrian response — also seemed to represent the first possible point of agreement over how to address the chemical weapons issue that has threatened to turn the Syria conflict, now in its third year, into a regional war.
The State Department says that Kerry was just being "rhetorical" and it's pretty obvious that this wasn't planned. But if we are sincere that our goal is to preserve the ban against chemical weapons then this should be a welcome possibility. On the other hand, if this whole thing is really just about finding a reason for military strikes so we can get involved in the Syrian civil war, then they won't be open to anything like this. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Update: well ...
Looks like they'll say the President now needs the congressional approval for leverage. And pols will probably go for it.
I would just remind them all that that's what Hillary Clinton said she was doing when she voted for the Iraq war. It didn't help her.
.