Obama's Syria Dilemma

Foreign policy is a tricky thing; as a multitude of strategies decided by the state to protect U.S. interests and achieve international relationship goals, foreign policy falls under the umbrella of public policy. So any failure in regards to foreign policy can be interpreted as a reflection of, or an indication of, the government's current weakness, which is never a good thing. President Barack Obama has a rather interesting history of foreign policy in this regard. Although, while nowhere near as checkered a history as George W. Bush's foreign policy, Obama has done some rather unfortunate self-infliction in the Middle East, namely in Syria. 

In March 2012, the president stated, in regards to the escalating standoff between Israel and Iran, that it would be unacceptable for Iran to acquire a working nuclear device. He drew a red line to this threat of Iranian nuclear power saying that, "As president of the United States, I don't bluff". I mention this because in August of the same year, Obama made a similar commitment in regards to the Syrian Civil War, that the Syrian use of chemical weapons would constitute a "red line" for the United States, and that it would be a mistake for President Bashar al-Assad to cross it. Well, now credible information from many reliable sources, both within and without the intelligence community, has informed us that Assad has deployed sarin gas against his own people; the line has been crossed. Unfortunately for Obama, defending the line means that the U.S. would have to deploy military assets into Syria, something that the commander-in-chief wants to stay clear of, and for good reason.

Now, the president is faced with an unpleasant dilemma: either take direct action against Syria, which he promised he would veer from, or undermine U.S. credibility and the credibility of his administration. This will have and effect on the other red line quote on Iran and is going to require that Obama consider a few possibilities; who will take the U.S. seriously on it's vow to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power, especially Iran, if the president goes back on his word against Syria? On the other hand, any move he makes on Iran will require cooperation from Russia and China, cooperation we wouldn't get if we got into a war with Syria, and vice versa.

It is unfortunate that a president that promised to get us out of two bad wars now has to deal with the possibility of starting a new one. He can't do nothing, otherwise Assad would be encouraged to use more chemical weapons and it would send a signal to America's allies and enemies that we are a nation of back-sliders. However, he can't just commit to Syria; billions of dollars in costs, possible ground deployment of troops, and definite casualties would invite unwanted comparisons to the Bush administration by his own party and constituents. I don't envy the position he's in, but hopefully four years of residing in the presidency has taught him a few things about how to effectively deal with these foreign policy issues. I didn't like his policy agenda that much in his first term, but that doesn't automatically mean that he's destined to be a failure in the second. I watch the unfolding events with both skepticism and optimism, hoping that he finds some sort of middle ground on how to proceed.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/26/obama_syria_dilemma?page=0,0

Bureaucracy - How Big Can it Get?

Referred to half the time as the fourth branch, the U.S. bureaucracy is despised by the vast majority of Americans. In all truth, our bureaucracy is essential to our modern society. There are claims that it isn't constitutional due to the fact that members of the bureaucracy are not elected, but the president is given constitutional power to put those people there. But there are other complaints about bureaucracy that have more of a motivation.

March 23, 2005 explosion at BP oil refinery in Texas City that resulted in 17 deaths and over 170 injuries.

There have assertions that bureaucracy stagnates growth and innovation, but this is necessary to insure that the same innovation and growth doesn't spiral out of control and into a catastrophe as it often does. Take BP for example; in the late 1990s, they moved from a government-managed rule-bound entity into a slim, more productive company. They disregarded the checks and balances placed on them in favor of a profit-motivated management style. This culminated in the 2005 explosion at BP's Texas City refinery which killed over a dozen people and injured more than a hundred more, as well as the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Well explosion that became known as the Gulf Oil Spill. BP was so eager to move away from the checks and balances that slowed growth in their operations that they didn't stop to consider which of those checks and balances should have stayed implemented. This is a perfect example of what happens when bureaucratic oversight is rejected entirely.

These issues with our current bureaucracy do not bother me. What does bother me is the question of

What do you make of all that red tape? He seems to really have his hands tied.

efficiency: how big should our bureaucracy be allowed to get before it becomes inefficient? It is my understanding that the larger a government or section of the government grows, it becomes harder to maintain efficiency and keep track of new developments. A good example of this is education in our public school systems. It is my understanding that U.S. public schools are becoming more inefficient in how it gets resources to where they need to go and how it encourages student initiative and growth, specifically in the inner cities. I can attest to that as someone who has progressed through quite a few schools in the past ten years and has noticed the deterioration. Bureaucratic systems, policies and practices that have built up over the past few decades have led to fewer resources being allocated to the classroom and it has prevented teachers from getting the support they need to address individual student needs. Teachers, students, parents, and taxpayers alike are all feeling frustrated and disheartened.

A chart detailing (left) the rate of public school employment of faculty compared to student enrollment and (right) the rate of federal spending in public education against reading, science, and math scores.

There are many examples of bureaucracy getting in the way of student advancement and learning: 1) Waste, fraud and abuse of district resources resulting in taxpayer dollars meant for education ending outside of education itself; 2) The bar for learning and advancement has been lowered in certain states which puts those students at a disadvantage when applying for a job; 3) School boards focus on micromanaging, adult in-fighting, and complying with existing policies and procedures rather than on solving these systematic problems to create environments that support teachers and students and lead to academic achievement. The list goes on and on, and even though no one i particular is to blame it is clear that education bureaucracy needs to be overhauled.

'Nuff said.

Bureaucracy has both benefits and disadvantages which I have become very aware of over the past few years and have accepted. Unfortunately, we are at a cross-roads in our current political system with two sides who are moving further and further away to opposite extremes where very few people are willing to acknowledge both sides of the coin. You have the Democrat party focusing mostly on the positive aspects of bureaucracy and the Republican party focusing mostly on the negatives; nothing ever gets done because neither side will acknowledge both aspects of the situation we are currently in. Bureaucracy is necessary to the large, complicated, and rapidly-changing society we live in, but it also needs improvement in order for it to work more efficiently.