This may prove to be one of the most unpopular diaries on these pages...
it is counter to most opinion (left and right)...
but worthy of consideration.
Rarely has there been such universal condemnation of a President’s foreign policy decisions as those seen by critics of Barack Obama’s moves regarding Syria. The blows come from both the left and the right; and there has been nary a positive word or voices of defense beyond his own. So, let me try to provide some reasons why his actions deserve some support.
The criticism seems to come in several categories: his vacillation on decision-making; lack of strategy regarding the Syrian civil war; uncertainty in his future actions; and the idea that somehow Putin has outfoxed him to the detriment of our country. Taking these as separate critiques makes defense of Obama’s actions easier – and more credible.
It is absolutely true that Obama has moved in “uncertain” ways since the start of the Syrian war; and especially during the chemical attack crisis. The issue here is that the critics have few alternative or positive plans to propose; indeed their suggestions are wildly diverse. That’s because there are so many moving parts to this war – and terrible gassing of civilians – that decision-making becomes not only difficult, but in some ways even undesirable. Obama has shifted positions, and I personally applaud him. Frankly, as an enemy, his “uncertainty” would be unsettling to me – the “not knowing when the other shoe might drop” syndrome. He has not been dogmatic or impulsive. In short, he has been reactive rather than proactive in his decision-making. That is in itself a “strategy”.
Additionally, he has been far more candid with the American public than his predecessors – so his late decision to get Congressional approval, while belated, should not be criticized. We have just gone through several wars (starting with Viet Nam) in which public opinion was disregarded. Obama has not played that game. For that, he also should be applauded.
Moreover, his threat to use military force against Assad’s chemical warfare weapons has had a desired effect. It should be remembered, Obama has never stated that his objective was regime change – he was always clearly committed only to destruction of the Syrian government’s stores of poison gas. In that he has been consistent, and with recent events, effective.
My liberal friends have frequently used the Bush/Iraq analogy to object to any kind of military action (Obama has been exceptionally clear that any action he is contemplating is specific, limited, and not entering the war with boots on the ground). I can understand that analogy, it is quite legitimate. However, not all analogies are accurate or relevant. There are other analogies which could be applied. You could hark back to the actions Truman took in concert with the UN when South Korea was invaded by the North. But perhaps the better one was when the world turned a blind eye toward Hitler as he coveted one European country after the other until he finally went over the line with Poland. Early response might have saved 50 million lives. Sometimes dictators need to be called out when their actions go over the top or threaten civilized norms. This may be such a situation, and Obama has acted.
Which brings us to the Putin issue; and particularly his recent NY Times op-ed. Many have stated that Putin has somehow gotten some advantage, personally and for Russia, with his actions. I fail to see that happening. Do we really believe that Putin is capable of giving Obama or America a lesson in democracy? To give Putin any credit in the regard is absurd. Certainly he has taken an offhand remark by Secretary Kerry, and ran with it. Who cares? As earlier stated, Obama had a single goal in this entire affair: prevent Assad from ever again using chemical weapons, and ultimately destroy his stash of such weapons. Should we adopt the moves now made in concert with Russia, the UN, and Syria’s assent – Obama’s goal (to the benefit of observing long accepted rules of war) will have been achieved. That is what really counts, not who should get most credit.
A final critique regarding Putin is his deriding American "exceptionalism". Obviously he denigrates us as part of his agenda in raising the stature of his own country. The problem here is that in many ways America is exceptional. I have spent a lifetime criticizing my country, in the belief that we can always do better. There are dozens of ways we need to improve as a society; and an equally large number of things that need remediation. But we are a diverse country, and that makes the task harder, but also creates the “melting pot” that makes us unique.
In a war weary environment, Obama’s reaction and strong response to the gassing of men, women and children is a tough sell; and his critics on both the left and right as well as a hostile Congress get a lot of traction in finding fault with his actions. But Obama has acknowledged that America can no longer be the policeman of the world; however, we should never abrogate our role in being the moral voice in the world.