On Tuesday night, Barack Obama will be making perhaps the most important speech of his presidency.
Obama’s task will not be easy. He will try to persuade a very skeptical nation that military strikes – even limited, targeted ones, with no troops on the ground – are justified and essential to protect US national security interests. Most Americans are tired after long US military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq. Polls show they are overwhelmingly opposed to getting involved in Syria’s civil war.
Even those who believe that the Syrian government, led by Bashar al-Assad, used chemical weapons against his own people, which reportedly resulted in over 1000 deaths (many of them children), have no appetite for another military action in the Middle East. Critics argue that there are simply too many risks, including setting off a wider conflagration in the region involving Iran and others.
Obama has made his case largely on humanitarian grounds. He has argued that it is crucial to reinforce an international norm against the use of weapons of mass destruction. He has emphasized how important it is to punish Assad, to teach him a lesson, and deter others who might be tempted to use such horrific weapons.
Obama may have a strong moral case, but he has several problems. The first is that so far his administration is isolated internationally on this issue. Other governments have mostly resisted Obama’s appeal to join his coalition. The British Parliament’s decision against the use of military force in Syria was a major, surprising blow to Obama. The failure to secure UN backing raises serious questions about the legality of Obama’s proposal.
The second problem is that Obama, whose position against the Iraq war helped him reach the presidency in 2008, set a “red line” last year against the use of chemical weapons. It is probable that Obama believed that Assad would never resort to such weapons. When he did so, Obama had to respond forcefully. Otherwise, his credibility, and that of the United States, would be in serious doubt. As a result, the perception is that Obama’s stance is as much about politics as about morality.
Just when Obama seemed ready to order military strikes against Assad, he decided to seek authorization from the US Congress. Obama deserves credit for that. Too often, US presidents have waged war without such authorization. But while a resolution will likely win in the Senate, in the House of Representatives the outlook is much tougher for Obama.
That is why Obama’s address is so crucial. He needs to turn around public opinion and clearly make the case that a military strike is wise and necessary. If his powers of persuasion are not adequate, Obama’s second term agenda – including immigration reform – would be in jeopardy.
Even if he convinces Congress and follows through with his decision, Obama’s political position, at home and internationally, will be at risk. It is never easy to predict what will happen once military action is underway, but it is hard to recall when uncertainties have been greater.
