In the ongoing competition between the United States and Russia to maintain international power, many say Obama has thrown in the towel. |
On Sept. 11,
2013, The New York Times
published an op-ed piece written by Russian President Vladimir
Putin. Putin directly addressed the people and the political leaders of the
United States and warned against any military action against the regime of
Bashar al-Assad.
“The
potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition
from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the
pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially
spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders,” Putin wrote. “A strike
would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism.”
Putin’s letter
was a direct response to a speech
given by President Obama the day before in which the American leader outlined
why military force was necessary.
“This would be a targeted strike to achieve a
clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons and degrading Assad’s
capabilities,” Obama said, adding that he would not deploy American troops on the
ground in Syria, nor pursue a prolonged bombing campaign.
In an August
2012 news conference Obama outlined when the U.S. would see it necessary to get
involved in the Syrian war, saying, “We
have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the
ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical
weapons moving around or being utilized.”
Now the U.S. is
caught between its threat of a red line and Russian efforts to negotiate a
non-military end to this chemical weapons issue.
At the United
Nations this week President Obama said the U.S. has no plans to invade Syria
(even though inspectors have found clear evidence Syria used chemical weapons
against its own people last month) but will continue to pursue diplomatic
pressure.
Some have been
quick to criticize Obama for his flip-flopping and the this puts special pressure on
the American president, said Abhishek Chatterjee, an assistant professor in the
department of political science at the University of Montana.
Chatterjee said
that political leaders often make decisions based off of the desire to maintain
credibility.
One method of
maintaining credibility in international politics, especially as a powerful
country like the U.S., is by setting an example. Chatterjee said it comes down
to being a bit of a mob boss.
When a mafia
boss wants to get money from a shopkeeper who fails to pay, the mafia boss
sends a couple people to break legs.
“He doesn’t want
to break the legs because he’s proud, he wants it to set an example to
everybody who is even thinking about not paying,” Chatterjee said, adding credibility
has nothing to do with ego.
Chatterjee said
that the United States’ embargo against Cuba is a 50-year-old example of this
approach.
“If you’re in
our backyard, you can’t be independent,” Chatterjee said. “By this logic, you
don’t get to act like a super power if you are quiet and peaceful and not
pushing around other countries… That’s how the world unfortunately works in the
realm of great power politics.”
As a world
leader, the U.S. depends on maintaining this credibility in order to keep its
position. When Obama backed down from his initial plan of initiating a military
strike against Syria, some saw this as weakness.
Putin’s letter
in the New York Times made it personal. Many of these arguments have been
focused more on the personalities of the two leaders rather than the
geopolitics behind the actual issue.
Various
publications have compared the situation between Obama and Putin to some type
of game. Garry Kasparov contributed an article to Time on Sept. 18 titled “Putin’s Pawn: Forget Chess or Checkers –
Obama Forfeited.” Israeli
news outlet Haaretz published an article by Asaf Ronel with the title “In the poker game with Obama on Syria, Putin plays the
Israel card.” Both
articles depict Putin as the bully and Obama as a pushover.
Many people
believe that Obama handing Putin the power to remove Syria’s chemical weapons has
left Russia with the upper hand. Some think that Obama was too accommodating,
given Russia’s “desire to limit American
influence in the world and putting an end to what it sees as arrogance of
bringing democracy by force to oppressive countries,” Ronel said in his
article.
But there is another
possibility, said International
Relations & Comparative Politics Professor Terry Weidner.
Putin’s letter
may have allowed Obama to avoid the perils of a hasty military attack. Weidner
pointed to the actions of former President George W. Bush when he refused to
wait and confirm that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before
invading Iraq.
“There’s a
lesson there,” Weidner said. “We went into this long and horrible war where you
can argue we did almost no good and a lot of harm for the very same thing we
would criticize Obama for. And that is simply waiting to get a viable
alternative to military action.”
Still, Weidner wonders about American standing in the world.