The Path not Recently Traveled

Posted on September 17, 2013 by bridepostpolitics

The Path not Recently Traveled – Under President Obama’s leadership, American foreign policy is rejecting recent habits

-Christopher Carroll

As we delve deeper into President Obama’s second term, his vision for American military involvement abroad becomes more distinct. Following Saturday’s developments in the Syrian chemical weapons negotiations, it is clear the President Obama is leading America toward more restrained military involvement in American foreign policy.

Though it has been a back and forth month for Obama, it has been one consistently restrained in style. Just weeks ago, the President called on Congress to vote to approve military action against Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons caché, a move that threw past presidential practice to the wind. Just days later, after it seemed clear that Congress would not approve such action, Russia and Syria suggested the possibility of putting the weapons under international control. These negotiations prompted Obama to ask Congress to delay the vote, fearful that Congressional refusal of military action would permanently cripple Secretary of State John Kerry in talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. On Saturday, Kerry and Lavrov came to an agreement that could bring Syrian chemical weapons under control and even begin destroying them in 2014. The diplomatic solution trumped the threat of military intervention.

If all goes according to plan, this is a victory for President Obama. Not only will Syrian weapons be accounted for and destroyed, but the Obama administration finds itself able to save face while not getting too close to the conflict. However, cancelling the Congressional vote on military action came at a cost; allowing members of Congress to avoid ownership of their opinions and making it nearly impossible to change course and use military force. The latter was a cost the President seems more than willing to pay. The former, is a shame.

****

Delaying the vote on Syrian action effectively made it impossible for President Obama to deploy American force if the deal is not adhered too. Without a doubt, delaying the vote prevented the damage that would have been done if Congress rejected military action, however it did not preserve the President’s ability to deploy military personnel, a power he effectively abdicated to Congress. To do so, he would have to withstand seriously damaging himself domestically and the benefits the President gained by turning to Congress last week have now been entirely undercut before reaching their full potential.

The caution that Obama showed with the Syrian weapons negotiations were understandable. The use of force on foreign soil is dangerous and unforeseen pitfalls and repercussions are felt across the region and world. But the timing of them is regrettable. After forcing Congress to share the burden in making decisions about Syria, Obama let them off the hook. America is now where we it stood two weeks ago, unsure if we can, or will, use force if Syria does not abide by the terms of Saturday’s agreement. The administration, writes Anne Gearan and Scott Wilson of the Washington Post, claims that they will not “press for U.N. authorization to use force against Syria if it reneges on any agreement to give up its chemical weapons.” However, unless Congress approves of military action, the President cannot politically afford to use force on his own. Because of this, it will be up to the international community and the U.N to enforce Syrian compliance, regardless of what the administration claims. The ace that American politicians have grown used to having up their sleeve is no longer there.

The signal this sends to the rest of the world is noteworthy. Iran, Israel and North Korea certainly are watching closely as American stubbornness and military activism become more restrained. Senators John McCain (R -Az.) and Lindsey Graham (R – SC.) both fear that the agreement will be interpreted by the international community “as an act of provocative weakness on America’s part.” This point of view may be overstated, as avoiding war and battle is infinitely more preferable than the alternative. However, it also cannot be denied that President Obama and America are rapidly transitioning from the hyper-active military force of recent history. Obama is leading the nation towards a more Jeffersonian tack in international relations. In the near future, we can expect America to stand for it’s principles, but not to over-extend itself to protect them unless all else fails.

Filed under: D.C Playground, Mandate to Debate - policy discussion, National Security, Uncategorized | Tagged: Barack Obama, Bashar al-Assad, Chemical Weapons, Foreign Policy, John Kerry, Middle East, Sergey Lavrov, Syria |

bridgepostpolitics

What we are saying on twitter

Blogs I Follow