[1] Wherein Kerry facetiously offered the supposedly-unacceptable path to avoiding conflict, allowing Putin to 'call' that bluff by actually agreeing to it.
- Obama took one on the chin and temporarily looked inept, but in the long run, no one will remember the war he didn't start, and both parties get to forget about that awkward time they were forced to advocate for positions opposite of traditional party lines.
- Russia lost a the ability to prevent any action against its increasingly isolated stoolpidgeon, but got some much needed diplomacy cred, and a distraction from its very public human rights issues.
- Assad doesn't risk provoking a multilateral military action against his government, but also gains a pretext to prevent proliferation of weapons that have become a huge liability, and some much needed legitimacy as the "grownup" in Syria.
I'm not a new world order guy, but I do absolutely think that there are times when unfriendly nations work through the backchannels to prevent things that are just awful for everyone.
I remember thinking, as it was all unfolding, that it all seemed planned out well in advance and that the way everything happened was just a bit too "convenient" (not sure if that's the right word I want to use).
> 1 March 2011: The US Senate unanimously passes non-binding Senate resolution S.RES.85 urging the United Nations Security Council to impose a Libyan no-fly zone and encouraging Gaddafi to step down. The US had naval forces positioned off the coast of Libya, as well as forces already in the region, including the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise.
It is disingenuous to claim that Obama is "bold" for not proceeding with a ridiculously ineffective plan opposed by the overwhelming majority of all Americans, up to and including his own wife, especially after Obama persisted in pushing it despite all that opposition. Further, is the author forgetting Libya? Obama didn't wait for congressional support then. Claiming Obama is heeding or has heeded a "constitutional catechism" is absurd.