I am convinced President Obama does not want to take America to a war on the Syrian crisis. Many are interpreting Obama’s handling of the crisis exhibits weakness and indecisiveness in his leadership and obscurity of his foreign policy. I for one disagree and I am not surprised by the president’s actions or there lack of. He is one of the most calculated, cool tempered presidents who cares about the average constituent and the weight of his decision on ordinary people. Obama is not reactive like other leaders who are more concerned about being perceived as strong leaders and are unwavering on their stance of bravado. He is more focused on making the right decisions and seems to care less about the judgment of those who are quick to react. A US unilateral action against the Syrian government would have unintended consequences with uncertain results; and Obama’s approach to the conflict has been consistent with his character, a president who is cautious and thorough when making decisions whether it be getting involved in wars or proposing domestic agenda.
I believe the President’s repeated warning to the Syrian government against the use of chemical weapons calling it “The Red Line”, to suggest that the US would get involved and take action if that line is crossed was his way of communicating to the world, that he does not intend to drag himself and his country into the conflict. I think his calculation was to give the Syrian government something they should not cross. Hence keep the US out of the conflict at least publicly. One would agree if the US can invade Iraq on the bases of suspected Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), logic would suggest that, for the Syrian government to call Obama’s warning bluff and use chemical weapons on their own people is nothing but a suicidal move, a risk not worth taking. So, some could argue, but that didn’t work, the president must have miscalculated the Syrian governments behavior? Perhaps, perhaps not. We don’t really know who used the chemical weapons do we? On my next post I will look into which actor(s) might actually have used the chemical weapons and why.
As Obama weights his options on Syria, I am sure the legacies of President Clinton’s Rwanda and President Bush’s Iraq are on his mind. He knows there is no easy fix but a high probable of lose lose outcome. What ever his political reasons might be, at the very least the Noble Peace Prize winner does not want to be judged for being an aggressor and a warmonger who engages the world in the same manner, as his predecessor would have. After all, in order to regain America’s credibility and win the hearts and minds of others, newly elected Obama did go around the world carrying the message, Americans respect the sovereignty and the ways of others; and that America is neither a hypocrite bully nor is it controlled by those who do believe that, the American expceptionalism equates to the US being bestowed the responsibility to act as the policeman of the world. Because in Obama’s own words, change has come to America, and “…a new dawn of American leadership [was] at hand.”
It is not surprising then that Obama, as Julie Pace reported to the Associated Press, against the advice of his cabinet secretaries, Obama chose not to take action against the Syrian government unless congress approves of his planned action. I believe this is another sign that even though he is asking for it, perhaps he hopes the American public would not endorse it. Perhaps the president himself is skeptic that the Syrian government used the chemical weapons. One way or another he seems to agree with Malcolm Gladwell’s advice, "…in times of crisis, we think what we want from our leaders is the benefit of their expertise; and that is not true. What we want from our leaders is the benefit of their humility”. Obama get’s it; when leaders stick to their stance of bravado their followers will be the one to shoulder the pain.
With the international media reporting more than 100,000 Syrians having lost their lives, 2 million refugees and 4 million internally displaced, the conflict is still raging and many Americans feel, the US have an obligation to help the conflict come to an end because the most powerful countries in the world do have responsibility. Former Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz best articulates this belief as he once said, “With so great a capacity to influence events comes a requirement to figure out how best to use that capacity to shape the future…besides, the risk of inaction, although difficult to gauge is likely to outweigh the risks of action.”
On the other side of the spectrum however are those who feel the US is not the policeman of the world and should not get involved, unless backed by a UN resolution. American intellectual and theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, also warned, in fact, “False security to which all men are tempted is the security of power”. Followers of the later view believe, the possible best-case scenario of US involvement in Syria would be a regime change and even that might not necessarily bring an inclusive and Western friendly regime to Syria; and ask why should then leaders of the West ramp up support for the need to get involved and take action? Andrew J. Bacevich an International Relations and History professor at Boston University who previously served in the military for 23 years, strongly agrees with Niebuhr. In his book The Limits of Power: The Endof American Exceptionalism, Bacevich articulates that America’s founding principle have been compromised. Because the US involvement around the world has to do largely to protect America’s ever-expanding consumption appetite, instead of finding ways to live under its means.
This strategy is not sustainable and breeds even more need for military involvement across the globe. Washington, Bacevich warns, has created a vast new permanent security apparatus, such as the Pentagon, the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies, making it harder for leaders to make independent decision, because each institution has its own interests that are not always aligned with one another. According to the author, the vast bureaucratic tapes prove more hindrance than assistance to decision makers. “Agencies put their interests above the nations; the generals just looked out for themselves and their particular services.”
Keeping those challenges in mind, one should certainly appreciate President Obama’s courage for standing against the Washington institutions and taking the matter of Syria to congress rather than deciding to act on his own as advised by his ‘Security Apparatus’ advisors. When Paces wrote, “The (president’s) decision highlights what has been a source of criticism among Washington’s foreign policy thinkers: a president who has centralized decision-making within the White House and at times marginalized the State Department and Pentagon.” This is a testament to the President that he is making independent decisions as opposed to accepting what is possibly being prescribed to him from those institutions. The president’s critics vindicate what Bacevich long preached; which is the foreign policies of different recent presidents are similar and bound to be similar; unless we elect a president who is willing to fight those prescription memos coming out of those mighty corridors and take the case to the people.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own views.
~Daniel
