Staying Out of Syria Didn't Sink Obama's Presidency After All

Remember when America's credibility and the president's legacy all depended on dropping bombs? Neither do the pundits who made those confident predictions.
Reuters

We now interrupt this news cycle for a lesson in public-affairs journalism and its biases. The headlines in recent days have been all about the government shutdown and the debt ceiling. The ongoing fight is being covered as if its outcome will do more than anything else to determine the political strength and trajectory of Tea Party Republicans, congressional Democrats, and the Obama Administration. 

Perhaps that is so. 

But it's worth remembering that just a few dozen news cycles ago, the political press was focused on the debate over intervention in Syria. And conventional wisdom briefly held that failure to intervene would transform the political landscape. Politico treated seriously the argument that Obama's presidency depended upon a military intervention in Syria. The Wall Street Journal said that when history judged John Kerry's four decades in public life, the Syria question would be the one that defined the secretary of state's diplomatic legacy.

Those arguments were dubious at the time. 

Now they're definitively disproved. President Obama did not intervene militarily, despite his "red line" comments. Instead, he pursued a diplomatic solution. As a result, the political landscape hasn't been transformed, Obama's presidency has not been compromised, and Kerry's legacy has not been much affected. The fact that the U.S. didn't drop bombs has not ruined our global credibility.

Many of the publications and journalists who asserted otherwise have themselves stopped talking about Syria, as if they now regard its importance as fleeting, if they even remember the extravagant claims they made about the issue at all.

Conventional wisdom often turns out to be wrong in hindsight, and the political press often inflates the importance of events as they happen, even though a moment's reflection would make clear the likelihood of their fading away. This instance of those pathologies is particularly worth dwelling upon because the erroneous assumptions at issue nearly pushed the United States into a war of choice. The next time a president is pondering military intervention, hawkish claims about the importance of dropping bombs should be treated with far more skepticism.

Presented by

Conor Friedersdorf is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he focuses on politics and national affairs. He lives in Venice, California, and is the founding editor of The Best of Journalism, a newsletter devoted to exceptional nonfiction.

The Horrors of Rat Hole Mining

"The river was our source of water. Now, the people won't touch it. They are repulsed by it."

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register with Disqus.

Please note that The Atlantic's account system is separate from our commenting system. To log in or register with The Atlantic, use the Sign In button at the top of every page.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Video

The Horrors of Rat Hole Mining

"The river was our source of water. Now, the people won't touch it."

Video

What's Your Favorite Slang Word?

From "swag" to "on fleek," tweens choose.

Video

Cryotherapy's Dubious Appeal

James Hamblin tries a questionable medical treatment.

Video

Confessions of Moms Around the World

In Europe, mothers get maternity leave, discounted daycare, and flexible working hours.

Video

How Do Trees Know When It's Spring?

The science behind beautiful seasonal blooming

More in Politics

Just In