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