Could Obama's Syria diplomacy lead to war?

One danger of a successful United Nations resolution is that it puts the U.S. on the same path as in Iraq: a cat and mouse game with inspectors, repeated confrontations over compliance, and mission creep that draws the U.S. inexorably into a war. Indeed, a United Nations resolution similar to the French proposal, which sets up a strict schedule for Assad to give up his weapons and includes penalties for noncompliance, would immediately increase America’s military commitments in Syria. Currently, Obama’s red line for intervention has been the use of chemical weapons. The resolution being considered at the U.N. would change that standard to the possession of chemical weapons. Obama would face the same pressures that both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush faced along the road to war against Saddam: a dictator defying the U.N, hawks in Congress pressing for régime change, a sympathetic opposition begging for more help. Perhaps this is why McCain, along with several other senators, was working on a new congressional resolution this week backing a United Nations resolution that includes the use of force against Syria for noncompliance.

Of course, given that China and Russia seem intent on blocking anything meaningful at the U.N., perhaps the diplomatic route is doomed, anyway, and perhaps Obama will soon be back to Congress asking again for authorization for a limited strike. And perhaps Putin’s shenanigans and a failure at the U.N. will buy Obama some extra support in Congress. It could even be a preferable course. A unilateral strike of the type Obama was originally considering has both less reward and less risk than what he’s trying to accomplish at the U.N. It would not disarm Assad of his chemical weapons, but it also has less of a chance of drawing the U.S. deeper into the war. A tough U.N. resolution, on the other hand, could be Obama’s way out—or it could be our country’s way in.