Over a year ago, President Barack Obama set down a “red line”
against the use of chemical weapons. In the past weeks, concerning the Syrian
conflict, Obama has tried to reshape this line: “First of all,
I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line,” he said, meaning that international
law prohibits the use of chemical weapons. If that is true, why aren't other
countries standing with us, ready to take action in Syria?
The Obama administration
has implied that military action is necessary to promote these international
standards against chemical warfare. John Kerry declared that any military
action would be “unbelievably small, limited action,” and would not include putting
troops on the ground. Here’s what I don’t understand: will an “unbelievably
small” strike accomplish Obama’s end game? Will “limited action” end the use of
chemical weapons and resolve Syria’s turmoil? I find it highly unlikely. Public
opinion polls indicate the majority of Americans feel the same way I do; the
general public is not in favor of striking Syria.
President Obama addressed the nation last night
in an attempt to gain domestic support of his plan to strike Syria. However, Obama sent mixed messages when he asked Congress to
delay their vote on military strikes. Obama has been saying all along that these strikes are necessary, but after failed attempts to persuade Congress
and the general public, Obama plans on waiting to hear more about a diplomatic
proposal between Russia and Syria.
In times of turmoil and
international crises, Americans desire a strong leader who is decisive and
clear-thinking. And in my opinion, that’s not what we’re getting from President
Obama’s administration. The president is sending mixed messages: a red line was
drawn and a red line wasn't drawn; “unbelievably small” military action will resolve the unbelievably huge conflict in Syria; military action is
necessary, but let’s wait to vote on military strikes until we hear what Russia
has to say. What exactly is Obama trying to communicate? I do not think Obama’s address changed the minds of many Americans; if anything, the speech just confused more
people. Obama’s “red line” is becoming blurrier by the day.
I think Obama is sending a clear message through his actions. If he really wanted to send missiles at Syria he would have already done so. He does not need Congressional approval (the Clinton strikes in Yemen and Pakistan had no approval). By putting the issue up for vote, he is showing that he doesn't think a strike is cost effective economically or politically.
ReplyDeleteThomas Schelling a Noble Prize winner for bargaining theory believes weakness is strength in bargaining. By involving Congress, Obama has tied his hand and appears to be limited on what he can do. Since suggesting a vote, Russia has come forth with a solution that was not present before. If it goes well, the ultimate of the chemical weapons being removed is achieved without unpopular military action taken by Obama.
Aaron,
DeleteMy whole point is that Obama is sending mixed messages. If he is saying one thing to the American public and meaning another (or taking actions that differ from what he is saying) that is not being clear, in my opinion. The vast majority of Americans do not have a strong understanding of foreign relations, so do we really want a president who is saying one thing about Syria but meaning another?
I understand what you mean by "weakness is strength in bargaining," but I don't know that the general public does. I don't disagree with everything you said, but my main argument is that Obama is not sending clear, decisive messages to the American public. Perception is reality - if Obama claims that strikes are necessary then the American people are going to believe that he truly thinks strikes are necessary. If Obama asks Congress to vote on military strikes, the American people are going to think that Obama wants Congress to vote for his proposed military action.
Shouldn't we be able to trust and understand what our president is communicating without having to analyze his words against his actions? I personally would like my president to say what he means and mean what he says!