If the President of the United States missed a crucial meeting at a time that his government wants to refocus his attention away from the Middle East to Asia, what does this say about its interests, priorities and its ability to make such a shift possible? This leads to the next issue, the region actually, that continues to undermine America’s standing around the globe.
The Syria Problem
Washington’s response to the Syrian civil war has been somewhat confusing and inconsistent. After declaring that the use of chemical weapons would cross a so-called ‘red-line’, President Obama did little after reports surfaced that the government of President Bashar al-Assad used them on several occasions. After deciding to arm the opposition rebels with light arms to help in their fight against the regime, the Obama administration hesitated and held out for months until the CIA began delivering weapons in September.
Senator Bob Corker, Republican from Tennessee, summed it up by saying he was embarrassed when he visited rebels along the Syrian border in August.
“It was humiliating,” he said. “The President had announced that we would be providing lethal aid, and not a drop of it had begun.”
The chemical weapons attack in Ghouta on August 21 proved to be a decisive turning point in the Syrian civil war. The Obama administration condemned the Assad government for killing hundreds of its own people. Mr. Obama decided that the United States had to act as doing nothing would not only threaten it’s international standing but also affect its moral compass.
He called for a limited military-strike on Syria that would take out military targets and would be narrow in scope. However, after British Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote in Parliament that would have authorized Britain’s participation in any such strike, Obama reserved course. He decided to ask Congress for authorization to strike Syria.
Constitutionally, the president did not have to ask for congressional approval and there are several examples of previous administrations launching military strikes without asking Congress.
While many applauded his decision to go to Congress, it gave the Assad regime precious time to prepare for any such strike. The ‘surprise’ factor of any military action was gone. More problematic for Obama was that it appeared that a majority of those in Congress would vote against giving him permission to strike Syria.
Ultimately, military action was not needed as Damascus agreed to give up its chemical weapons. An offhand comment by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry suggesting that Damascus could do so to prevent an attack by the United States was seized upon by Russia. Within days, Syrian President Bashar-al Assad agreed to give up Syria’s stockpile and to allow inspectors in.
With the public opinion in the United States firmly against any intervention and Congress heeding the calls of the people to vote no, President Obama was in a tough position even if Syria did not give up its weapons.
What does this say about its credibility in the world? The United States is one of the few counties, if not the only one in the international arena, able to intervene in conflicts around the world that threaten its interests or that pose humanitarian dilemmas. But its hesitation in reacting to Syria, a conflict that has killed over a hundred thousand people throughout its nearly three year duration, shows the limits of American influence. The United States has had little influence in the conflict and has been reluctant to even get involved. While Washington should not serve as the policeman of the world, it can’t be a bystander to a government’s brutality against its own people.
Both politically and economically, the United States has seen its clout and prestige tarnished by the political chaos at home as well as domestic opposition to becoming more involved in conflicts that seems so far removed for the American people.
While understandable, it points to the possibility that America’s standing in the world is not what it used to be.
Despite the rise of China, the United States remains the sole political and economic mega power. Yet, with its ability and will power diminished, Washington’s image is being questioned.
If conditions improve, Washington may yet reverse this decline but the international community should become more accustomed to a world where the United States remains a strong player but is not the economic or political weight that it used to be. The only question is how far distant it will be when another crisis hits or how much trouble it will have in repositioning itself to areas of strategic importance. That perhaps, is the most dangerous unknown that we will have to deal with in the coming years.
Garret Pustay
VOIX Politics Editor
13