Four reasons why Obama's critics on Syria have it wrong

Critics who say Obama lost foreign-policy ground to Russia, Assad, and Putin on the Syria crisis have it just plain wrong. Here are four reasons why the critics are mistaken.

3. Not see that diplomacy reinforces American power, not decline

The critics wrongly concluded that diplomacy over chemical weapons in Syria just reinforces American decline. Their biggest error is a profound misreading of power. Power is not absolute but shifts according to conflicts, interests, and public opinion. Moreover, the use of military force itself is not linear or black and white, and is significantly affected by strategy, the nature of a conflict, the training and equipping of military forces, and the political character and aims of the governments involved.

For example, the United States was unable to win militarily in Korea in 1950. This was the case even when it was the only country in the world with usable nuclear weapons, China was prostrate after decades of war and revolution, and the Soviet Union was still gravely wounded by World War II. The US also failed to win in Vietnam from 1964-1973. What conclusions could be drawn from these defeats?

At the time, some – including the Soviet government – concluded that the US was about to be surpassed by the USSR. In fact, what happened over the next two decades was quite different from this prediction: China essentially abandoned communism, and the Soviet Union collapsed. While this was happening, the United States began to overcome its racist legacy and oppression of women and minorities, its economy grew vastly richer, and Americans grew wealthier than ever before in their history. Some decline!

3 of 4

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.