Although much is made of the moral grounds for war or warlike action, the game of war is played across a diplomatic table where only winning and losing is at stake. Let’s look at the hand played in recent days by two world powers and their respective leaders. First, the American President had the following cards in hand:
* The morality card – innocent civilians killed by poison gas and the international treaty prohibiting such;
* The “red line” threat previously announced and actual preparations made to conduct a punitive military strike;
* Lack of support for any warlike action from American citizens, likely including members of Congress;
* Inability to pass any punitive measure through the U.N. Security Council;
* The President’s reluctance to be involved in another Middle Eastern war;
* The President’s reluctance to commence a proxy war with Russia and Iran instead of spending the bounty of the wars just ended or ending in support
of his domestic agenda.
Now let’s look at the Russian President’s hand:
* Unfettered resupply of weapons to Syria;
* The backing of China as practically the sole proprietor of Syrian oil (and the main source of revenue needed to pay for Russian weapons);
* Veto power in the U.N. where any move against Syria could be easily blocked;
* Fear of a U.S. military strike that would both weaken Syrian capability and expose Russian inability to protect a client state;
* Growing international condemnation of Russia’s unwavering support for Assad in lieu of any political solution likely requiring him to step down
from office;
* Reluctance to spur the U.S. into a proxy war where the potential drain on the Russian economy might become insupportable (remember the
Russian-Afghan war).

Obama had two cards (first two bullets) and Putin had three (first three bullets) to play. But, if the American President played his hand, Russia’s lost would be greater. Putin would never have forced Syria into compliance if he thought otherwise. Certainly, Obama risked losing political and international influence. But he was not risking re-election. And he has shown a willingness to put his presidency on the line before (remember the fight over Obamacare, his pursuit of Osama Ben Laden into an allied country, and his continual use of drone strikes in the face of international opposition). Oddly, the outspoken voices of hawks in the U.S. Senate may have even strengthened Obama’s hand. In exchange for their support, the Administration was forced to cave somewhat on the last two bullet items by agreeing to provide more support for the rebels and even to “change the momentum” of the war. Any increase of American involvement would further weaken Putin’s position and strengthen Obama’s hand. So, in this fast and furious game of Syrian poker, all hands were thrown onto the table with a single game changer: Syria must sign on to the international treaty prohibiting the use of chemical weapons and release their stockpile of these weapons to U.N. control. All sides can now discard their negative cards: the non-proliferation treaty calls for punitive enforcement measures; a potentially damaging military strike is avoided; and both superpowers seem aligned on a path that could lead to further demilitarization. Both Putin and Obama look like winners, though the Syrians are still stuck in a civil war that defies prognostication.

My conclusion is that something positive may in fact come out of this nasty business of high stakes poker. Machiavelli, Cardinal Richelieu, Churchill, Kissinger and the like would call this potential result a diplomatic achievement. But I call your attention to the fact that the cards held in hand involved weapons and lives. This situation reminds me of an old Star Trek episode where an enlightened people fought wars with computers, wherein the digital tally of victories and losses was recorded until the program could determine the overall winner. Then the losing side would accept their defeat by voluntarily surrendering their computed losses in the form of human lives. The point of the storyline was that the game was no less barbaric than the actual wars averted. In the diplomatic games of the 21st century, we are no less barbaric. We expect our President to be “warrior-in-chief,” even when we deny him support, demonstrably washing our hands of the outcome. But we voted him into the game and expect him to play as deftly as he can for there is a penalty in abandoning the game. In the case at hand, the penalty is possible proliferation of chemical warfare. But let’s not fool ourselves about how the game is played: the end seems to justify the means. And that ethical construct is hardly the banner of an enlightened civilization. It is simply how the game is played.