The All Too Familiar Presidential Question

A Familiar Presidential Question – once again, an American President will have to decide the role intervention and preemption play in American foreign policy

-Christopher Carroll

 

This year, President Obama will have to do exactly what he seems to heartily dislike. Soon he will have to re-examine the role America and the America military are going to play in the Syrian conflict. In doing so, he will once again signal the place intervention and preemptive action hold in American foreign policy. The results will have far reaching implications for Syria, Iran and the entire Middle East.

Just two days ago in off-record remarks made to Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C), John McCain (R – A.Z.) and about a dozen members of Congress, Secretary of State John Kerry voiced skepticism that the Obama administrations Syria policy is working.

In what Jennifer Psaki, Secretary of State Kerry’s spokesman, deemed a “mischaracterization” of Kerry’s remarks, Senators McCain and Graham welcomed Mr. Kerry’s determination that chemical weapons removal was being “slow-rolled.” The two Senators have long been frustrated with the Obama foreign policy in Syria and believe that an increased military presence is required to bring an end to the ongoing humanitarian crises.

Kerry’s statements, explains Ms. Psaki, are in line with administration policy. “No one in this administration thinks we’re doing enough until the humanitarian crisis has been solved and the civil war ended.”

 The Geneva negotiations have as of yet proved fruitless. “We haven’t achieved anything,” explained U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi. The stakes, however, are high. Since the beginning of the conflict, more than 100,000 people have been killed, with nine million Syrians forced to flee from their homes and a recent testimony by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper suggests that regions in the country are becoming a center of radical extremism and a potential threat” to the United States.

****

President Obama’s policy has been widely criticized since pronouncing two and a half years ago that “the time has come for President Assad to step aside.” Now, with his Secretary of State, prominent members of the Senate, and senior members of the national intelligence community raising the alarm, Mr. Obama could soon be forced to make new decisions.

In 2014, an American President will once again be forced to decide the role intervention and preemption will play in American foreign policy. Syrian  rebels, President Bashar al-Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin  will wait as the future of American intervention is determined. Meanwhile, Iran and the Middle East will watch for signs of the future of American pre-emptive action.

Will President Obama’s aversion for the neo-conservative policies of the Bush administration, coupled with his seeming preference for Jeffersonian foreign policy, give way to calls for action from members of his own Cabinet and Senate? Time will tell.

The Path not Recently Traveled

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.

A New Era of American Foreign Policy

 

A New Era of American Foreign Policy

 -Christopher Carroll

A new age is dawning in American foreign policy. As Congress’ summer recess comes to a close, groundbreaking decisions can’t be made in Washington. President Obama’s decision to involve Congress in any military operations in Syria, is one with profound implications for Syria and one that will reverberate for generations in American policy.

****

A year after Obama’s famous “red-line” comments, the administration is now citing evidence that the Syrian government, led by President Bashar al-Assad, has used chemical weapons on their own people.

The announcement by Secretary of State John Kerry was immediately followed by wide speculation about the nature of U.S involvement in the conflict. Conjecture on the scope of military involvement ran rampant, especially given the United State’s shady intervention record recently in Iraq and Afghanistan and the David Cameron’s announcement that the parliament of the United Kingdom had voted down the possibility of U.K military involvement in Syria. Would Obama commit the United States’ military to difficult operations in an excruciatingly complex revolution without concrete goals and clear cut, comprehensive results? 

Obama, in an atypically shrewd act of political navigation, has relieved himself of enforcing his naive “red-line” comments. He has given Congress exactly what they are always clamoring for, more power and the final say in military efforts while simultaneously finding himself able to argue that he isn’t backing down. The President has saved himself from the attacks that surely were to follow his decision regardless of what is decided while providing Congress with what they have traditionally claimed they deserve.

President Obama has already received the support for military action. House Speaker Boehner (R. – OH), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R. – Va), and the Senate Foreign relations committee have all approved of combat operations. This does not mean that it’s passage in the House is a sure thing. Members of Congress will have to publicly state their positions on the Syrian conflict, something that many politicians have been hesitant to do. Some congressmen, fearful of war-weary public repercussions, are likely to buck their party leadership. Others, more fearful of how history will judge them if they don’t take action in Syria, are more likely to approve the limited U.S military engagement. President Obama, meanwhile, is sitting back in political safety, letting the chips fall where they may.

Obama’s decision to turn to congress has major consequences in the international arena both inside and outside Syria. French President Francois Hollande, who, in France, does not need parliamentary approval to use the military and who has already expressed his willingness to follow the U.S into military action, may find that he has few options following the U.K and U.S precedents, forcing him to allow French parliamentary involvement (a major decision given the poor support military intervention has among the French public) in decisions regarding French military engagement. Additionally, Israel and Iran are closely watching this new congressional trend in American military action. While Iran watches to see if a new American military paradigm has been born, Israel looks upon President Obama’s action with apprehension, fearing that this new trend may negatively influence American willingness to help them in potential conflicts over Iran’s nuclear power program. A potentially new trend in American military use will certainly change the playing field between these two countries as both wonder whether or not Americans will continue to readily expend blood and treasure on foreign soil.

****

The President’s decision has immense long term repercussions on the future of American foreign policy.

The War Powers Act of 1973 was meant to check the President’s ability to commit American military forces to armed conflict. Presidents are granted 60 days of military engagement plus 30 days of withdrawal from any action without Congressional approval. Unauthorized use of military personnel is technically against the law. However, that law has frequently been circumvented and even entirely ignored by presidents, making it now an accepted part of the “imperial presidency” that some feel endangers American structural integrity.

President Obama’s rejection of such action is shocking, all the more so given the lack of worldwide support for the Syrian opposition and worldwide pressure to act. Does this mean that there will never again be a Vietnam conflict or Iraq War disaster? Probably not. Does this mean the Iran/Contra affairs of the future will never again come to fruition? Hopefully. Will America, by deferring all military action to Congress, cease acting unilaterally in international crises? Doubtful. But rather than being remembered for budget and debt debates, Summer 2013 may be remembered for a shifting of government structure in Washington D.C.

Time will tell if we are indeed nearing the end of an era marked by American presidential military action. If this trend holds true, it will without a doubt be the legacy of Barack Obama’s presidency. Having entered office a constitutional lawyer and professor, the President has followed long, winding road through Nobel laurels and Wilsonian ideals. But, as he nears the close of his presidency, he seems to be becoming a Jeffersonian. The country and the world would best take note. American foreign policy is entering a new era.