It’s not often that a secretary of state in a single press conference makes one statement that severely undercuts the administration’s chances of winning a crucial vote in Congress and another that offers the administration a cosmetic way out of severe difficulties of its own making. But John Kerry managed to do that in London Monday. It’s a second example of policymaking-off-the-top-of-the-head, the first being Barack Obama’s decision, made during a Friday evening walk around the White House grounds with Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, at the start of a three-day holiday weekend, to seek congressional authorization of the use of military force in Syria.

Kerry’s first statement was made in response to a 46-word question that referenced the widespread opposition to military action among voters in Britain, France and the United States. In the midst of a 553-word reply, Kerry said, “We will be able to hold Bashar Assad accountable without engaging in troops on the ground or any other prolonged kind of effort in a very limited, very targeted, very short-term effort that degrades his capacity to deliver chemical weapons without assuming responsibility for Syria’s civil war. That is exactly what we’re talking about doing – unbelievably small, limited kind of effort” (emphasis added). To which Sen. John McCain tweeted, “Kerry says #Syria strike would be ‘unbelievably small’ – that is unbelievably unhelpful.” Unhelpful, at least, in getting Republican votes, including McCain’s, for authorizing military force. Why should members of Congress take an unpopular position for a use of military force that is “unbelievably small”? Kerry was obviously attempting to mollify dovishly inclined Democrats. But there aren’t enough of them to pass a resolution in either the Senate or the House.