Two Obamas

Since January 2009 when Obama entered his second term, the U.S. military has pulled out of Iraq, ending the Iraq War; according to U.S. plans, the current war in Afghanistan is also coming to an end. The U.N. Security Council voted on Sept. 27 with regard to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, passing Resolution 2118. Since the sudden start of the conflict in Syria in March 2011, this resolution also recalls three past resolutions concerning Syria. This means that in spite of the U.S. already having stationed military in the area, it has temporarily cast aside notions of using military force on its own, agreeing to use foreign relations in the U.N. and work with the international community to resolve the problem in Syria. In the five years overall of Obama being in office, it’s obvious he avoids using large-scale military force to invade other countries when attacking, getting help from allies to display superiority in military preparation and technological advancement, this being a convenient strategy to use against enemies. A case in point is when the U.S. assaulted Libya, it used military drones to invade and attack. Obama is altering military strategy to gain control in war; this has profound implications both internationally and domestically.

First of all, this era of peace and development is a crucial factor restricting the U.S. from using all-out military attacks. After World War II, U.S.-Soviet mutual hostility from the Cold War has been apparent from time to time, but a large-scale war between the two has not occurred. Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. is the main Western power promoting new methods of attack, continuing to lead regional wars, no matter if it is the Iraq War, war in Afghanistan or attacks against Libya. Not only does the U.S. pay a price by receiving heavy losses, but ultimately fails in conquering other countries and does not bring peace and stability to the world or the region in question. Sudden interest by the U.S. in Syria as a threat is due to the use of chemical weapons in Damascus on Aug. 21. Russia and the U.S. have both gathered military force in the area and waters around Syria, creating the possibility of escalating into an even larger-scale regional war at any moment. However, the international community continuously tries to use peace efforts to control the U.S. and other Western countries from using military force against Syria. The U.S., United Kingdom and other countries’ citizens are not in favor of using strong military force that may escalate into war. Although the U.S. will not abandon using the threat of war and the option of war with new methods of attack, in a world where international finance has recovered after the economic crisis, its strong hope is to advance economic growth and improve life for all the world’s people. Meddling in other countries’ politics and causing wars is not looked on favorably, nor is trying to use military force to change other countries’ governments. This all will meet with strong opposition from citizens.

Secondly, the U.N. does not just sit by and do nothing. In fact, it has great hope for the future, promoting cooperation to protect peace and development with the use of civilized foreign relations. In order to make an excuse for developing new methods of attack to trigger warfare as the main Western power, in addition to exaggerating conflicts and demonizing other countries, the U.S. manufactures an image of a U.N. that “doesn’t take action.” With U.N. Security Council Resolution 2118 having been passed, its implementation is a show of progress which has already incurred a general feeling of satisfaction. The U.N. faces investigations for chemical weapon attacks in Syria, along with the weapons’ disposal being a serious challenge; the U.N. is the most qualified international organization to take on these challenges, with great possibilities for action. Although faced with a situation of war, there are many serious difficulties, including funding and time urgency. It just needs the members of the Security Council, especially the “Big Five,” to make efforts to cooperate, to continue to agree to disagree in order to find a common solution. Through the U.N., it can be possible to complete this goal by the middle of next year, creating progress. U.N. action can be a huge driving force to prevent U.S. military action against other countries.

Thirdly, the U.N. Security Council “Big Five” continually strategize for their own interests, their response to regional conflicts hindering progress, which expands the gap between them and the rest of the world in cooperation for world peace. In the more than two years of conflict in Syria, when responding to various questions that have arisen, it seems the U.S. and Russia are always at odds and not giving any leeway for compromise. This [division] has developed to the point that when U.S. warships moved to waters close to Syria in preparation for attack, it prompted Russia to also send “routine” military to the same area. Actually, it is apparent to both the U.S. and Russia that if the U.S. takes military action against Syria, conflict in the Middle East would increase. It would bring with it not only disaster for the people of the Middle East, but would also do serious damage to both countries’ strategic interests, leaving a situation where no one wins. With globalization and information technology, the “Big Five’s” regional benefits are in the areas of economics, finance, global security, etc. No matter what the war or military conflict, all other parties involved are affected and harmed to different degrees by the “Big Five’s” strategic interests. On the other hand, if the “Big Five” work together to coordinate with other countries to respond to conflicts around the world, the “Big Five” would all also benefit.

Fourth, in the eight years Obama has been in office, the U.S. will have gone through the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as well as suffered international financial crisis; they need time to recover and are hard-pressed for finances to support any large-scale military action. The U.S. federal government’s budget includes military spending, which contributes to the issue of rising debt. Requests for reduction in military spending are growing in the U.S. In discussing and developing the 2014 fiscal year financial plan and the next 10-year spending plan, there are proposed plans where by 2023, the overall value of military spending would gradually decrease from the current 4 percent to 2.4 percent, which would be the lowest average since World War II. Whether this plan will be passed by Congress, get approval from the president and be carried out is still unknown, but an actual reduction in military spending is a real possibility. Besides, next year the spending plan is set to automatically reduce; there has already been a reduction of several hundred million [dollars] in the military budget.

In view of the aforementioned reasons, including the fact that talks have resumed between the U.S. and Iran along with North Korea, the rate of new military conflicts is on the decline. In the eight years he has held office, Obama could become the first president since World War II to not lead an invasion using large-scale military force; on the other hand, he uses global monitoring to control the world with intelligence gathering and developing alternative options for military attacks. He is a president that frequently infringes on other countries’ sovereignty.