ShareThis Page

Lessons from JFK

| Thursday, Sept. 12, 2013, 8:55 p.m.

The president was in a bind. He had laid down a clear “red line” — which his enemies had flouted. Now he faced an unenviable choice: take action to enforce his red line or suffer a catastrophic blow to his political credibility at home and abroad.

“I should have said we don't care,” the commander in chief mused in the privacy of the White House. “But when we said we're not going to ‘tolerate it' and then they go ahead and do it, and then we do nothing ... ” His voice became an incomprehensible murmur, but his meaning was clear. Doing nothing was not an option.

This tape-recorded exchange took place not in September 2013 but on Oct. 16, 1962, the day John F. Kennedy discovered that the Soviet Union had sent nuclear missiles to Cuba, triggering the most serious crisis of the Cold War. A month earlier, the president had publicly warned the Soviets that “the gravest issues would arise” if they developed a “significant offensive capability” in Cuba. He now doubted the wisdom of his earlier statement.

Fortunately, Kennedy devised a way out of the box that he had helped to construct. He managed to avert a nuclear war while preserving — even strengthening — U.S. credibility on the international stage.

President Barack Obama needs to perform a similar maneuver if he is to defuse the Syrian crisis in a way that will enhance his political standing while escaping another Middle Eastern quagmire. Russia's proposal of placing the Syrian chemical arsenal under international control may offer him a chance to do just that.

There are obviously many differences between the Cuban missile crisis and today's standoff over Syria. The Cuban crisis presented a much more immediate threat to the United States. The risk of events spiraling out of control was also much greater. Both Kennedy and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev understood that time was turning against them, which is why they acted to end the standoff after just a few days.

The most useful lesson that our current president could draw from the Cuban missile crisis would be to emulate Kennedy in slowing down the seemingly inexorable rush to war. With his controversial move to include Congress and the American people in the debate, Obama laid himself open to charges of indecisiveness. But he succeeded in buying a little time. This has allowed a possible alternative to military action to emerge.

Next to popular support, time is the most valuable of all political commodities. Like Kennedy before him, Obama now has an opportunity to escape from the box that he created with his Syrian red line. But for the gambit to succeed, he will also have to maintain the credible threat of force against the Syrian regime. He cannot allow his bluff to be called.

Kennedy understood that the threat of force is often more effective than the use of force. The problem with using force, as George W. Bush discovered in Iraq, is that war is unpredictable. Many things can go wrong. It is better to hold your weapons in reserve for as long as possible — and allow the diplomats to get to work.

It is too early to tell whether Obama's kick-the-can strategy will succeed. But to quote Winston Churchill, a favorite of the bomb-them-now school of military pundits, “to jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.”

Michael Dobbs, a former Washington Post reporter, is the author of “One Minute to Midnight: Kennedy, Khrushchev, and Castro on the Brink of Nuclear War.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.