PPI - Radically Pragmatic
  • Donate
Skip to content
  • Home
  • About
    • About Us
    • Locations
    • Careers
  • People
  • Projects
  • Our Work
  • Events
  • Donate

Our Work

Foreign Policy: Absent Without Leave

  • September 13, 2013
  • Will Marshall

In the late 1960s, Britain signaled the end of its long run as a world power by withdrawing from major military bases east of the Suez Canal. Today, as the White House confronts the crisis in Syria, could America be facing its own “east of Suez” moment?

The historical parallels aren’t exact. Britain was an empire; the United States isn’t — despite the tendentious polemics of inveterate anti-Americans, from Noam Chomsky to Glenn Greenwald. Britain had already been surpassed by bigger superpowers by the 1960s. That hasn’t happened to America and isn’t likely to happen in the foreseeable future. But the debate over intervention in Syria has illuminated large and growing cracks in the internationalist consensus that has underpinned U.S. global leadership since World War II.

That consensus has been strained to a breaking point by feral partisanship and by a Republican Party increasingly in thrall to libertarian ideas. As a skeptical Congress awaits a possible vote on President Barack Obama’s proposal to use military force against Bashar al-Assad’s regime, the big question is whether the United States can still muster the internal cohesion to play a decisive role in world affairs.

In his prime-time address Sept. 10, Obama asked Congress to postpone the vote pending a possible deal with Russia that would transfer Syria’s chemical arsenal to international custody. The scheme could spare Obama the embarrassment of being rebuffed by Congress, where sentiment against a U.S. strike has been hardening. But the fact that Russian President Vladimir Putin, Assad’s enabler and the U.S. president’s tormentor in chief, is the one throwing Obama a political lifeline should give us pause about the deal’s merits. To be sure, the deal would be good for Obama, allowing him to boast that his threat to use force compelled Assad to give up his chemical weapons. It might also earn Putin a Nobel Peace Prize. But it won’t end the agony of the Syrian people, because it would leave Assad free to go right on killing them with conventional weapons.

If Washington forswears the use of force against Syria, as Putin is demanding, it will have paid a very high price for reinforcing the norm against chemical warfare. The Russian gambit, moreover, may founder on its sheer impracticality: Will Assad, his back to the wall, really give up his most fearsome weapon? And how will U.N. weapons inspectors be able to find and remove all the regime’s chemical weapons in the middle of a war zone? Even from a purely logistical standpoint, the Russian proposal may be close to impossible.

Read the piece at Foreign Policy.

Related Work

Publication  |  July 14, 2025

Build Back Belief: Why Voters Around the World Lost Faith in Government and How to Win it Back

  • Deborah Mattinson Claire Ainsley Tom Brookes
Op-Ed  |  July 13, 2025

Jacoby for Washington Monthly: Trump’s Shift on Ukraine is Welcome, but Now What?

  • Tamar Jacoby
Op-Ed  |  July 11, 2025

Marshall for The Hill: How Trump Can Capitalize on Autocrats’ Setbacks

  • Will Marshall
Op-Ed  |  July 10, 2025

Ainsley and Mattinson for The Observer: Do our leaders really care about us? To keep us on side they must prove they do

  • Claire Ainsley Deborah Mattinson
Feature  |  July 7, 2025

Jacoby for Washington Monthly: Ukraine Infantry Adapts to More Menacing Drones

  • Tamar Jacoby
In the News  |  July 6, 2025

Jacoby on Background Briefing with Ian Masters: China Admits It Wants the Ukraine War to Drag on to Keep the US and NATO Out of Asia

  • Tamar Jacoby
  • Never miss an update:

  • Subscribe to our newsletter
PPI Logo
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Donate
  • Careers
  • © 2025 Progressive Policy Institute. All Rights Reserved.
  • |
  • Privacy Policy
  • |
  • Privacy Settings