President Barack Obama has had a difficult year. With the NSA scandals, sliding approval ratings and a chaotic international scene, the White House has scored few victories and weathered many embarrassing moments. The most recent headache to confront Obama is the situation in Syria, which continues to deteriorate and create complex international political situations. Polls show that Obama’s approval rating on this issue has been steadily dropping as he pushes for intervention, which many see as another political blunder. But I would argue that Obama’s handling of the Syria issue has been his most politically effective campaign in years.
On the surface, the case for military intervention in Syria appears very similar to the reasons for the invasion of Iraq and especially the ousting of Muammar Gaddaffi in Libya. All three cases involve a dictator willing to butcher thousands of civilians. Both of the previous cases ended in American military action ordered by the president with cooperation from the international community, but without official Congressional approval. Obama’s savvy move on Syria has been to deviate from the path of police action.
Syria is a no-win situation. With or without American involvement, thousands of civilians will die. Whoever emerges victorious from the conflict — Assad or one of the rebel groups, many of whom have ties to terrorist organizations — will not be a friend to the United States, and will likely be actively hostile to us. It’s possible, maybe probable, that regardless of our actions the conflict will continue for years without a clear winner. Obama has no chance of changing any of these realities with intervention. And he will not receive strong international support, as evidenced by Russia’s and China’s continued backing of Assad’s regime and Britain’s rejection of intervention by its Parliament.
By coming to Congress and asking for approval for intervention, Obama communicates both with the American people and with the world. He clearly states that he wants to respond to Syria’s use of chemical weapons. This at least somewhat protects his legacy — he has taken a clear stand against chemical weapons, and any inaction by America to address the issue would not reflect his personal choice. The second message is that the era of president’s bypassing Congress and taking “police action” is over. Assad’s offenses are at least equal to and possibly worse than Gaddaffi’s were, but Obama is rejecting the rationale he took just a few years ago in recognition of the markedly different internal and international political landscape. It also frees him from responsibility on the final decision — the choice is now in Congress’s hands.
The third message is that Obama is not intimidated by the United Nations, which will not support military action, and that he will listen to Congress instead of international tribunals. All of these messages will, in the long run, benefit Obama’s standing in history and the eyes of the American people. It counters the criticism that he too easily follows the will of the UN, removes responsibility for the choice of intervention from his hands, and is the most safely Constitutional military move from any president in recent memory. Any fallout from America’s final decision will now fall on Congress and not Obama.
In terms of public opinion, Obama’s move is already paying off in subtle ways. While polls show disapproval of his handling of Syria, Obama’s overall approval rating is unchanged. This is because the American people appreciate the fact he did not circumvent their will and singlehandedly start an extremely unpopular war. Once his short-term views on Syria are no longer in conflict with popular opinion, his extremely democratic moves in response to the situation will be what is remembered, not his personal wishes. And the result will be an improved relationship of trust with the American public, which he needs in order to accomplish anything of note in the final three years of his presidency.
The public’s trust of government, and Obama in particular, is lower than at any other point in his time in office. His treatment of Syria provides an avenue of redemption that could prove the difference in Obama’s legacy. While it is easy to disagree with Obama’s opinions on Syria, and very possible to view his actions as political ploys, it is equally difficult not to admire their farsighted nature and potential to restore life to his administration.
Forrest Brown is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. His columns run Thursdays.
Read More
HARBATH: Compulsory attendance policies are harmful to students
By Julie Harbath | 20 hours agoBy permitting a return to antiquated, inflexible attendance policies, the University is jeopardizing student health and wellness.
ARRAS: The cavalier tendency to say “I do”
By Aoife Arras | 5 days agoIn continually promoting marriage-mindedness, the University and student organizations actually undermine the educational mission of this institution.
VAN DE SOMPEL: “Rules are Rules”
By Mo Van de Sompel | May 27, 2024In reality, rules are contextual, and enforcement is selective.
