Obama's Democratic Gamble
Published in Sabah
(Turkey) on 2 September 2013
by Omer Taspınar (link to original)
Obama, who made a hasty appearance in front of the cameras Saturday, succeeded in surprising everyone again. It was his anticipated declaration of approval for limited and punitive airstrikes against the Assad regime, which had been planned for days. In front of surprised onlookers, Obama declared that rather than give the green light for bombing, he would seek congressional approval. Thus, the decision process for these very limited, and likely ineffective airstrikes, has entered a long and bumpy route. Then, why is it that Obama, contrary to expectations, felt the need to get the approval of Congress for this military operation?
In short, it is a quest for maximum consistency and legitimacy. In 2003, as an ordinary state senator from Illinois, Obama opposed Bush's war in Iraq and accused the White House of failing to get the approval of Congress. Obama, who sees political consistency as a virtue, does not want to find himself in the same boat as Bush. Why then did not Obama show the same consistency when it came to Libya? The operations carried out in Libya did not require congressional approval. The Obama administration responded to that question by pointing out that Libya had the approval of the United Nations Security Council. As a result, politically there was no problem with legitimacy. However, this time there is a problem of legitimacy, both domestically and internationally. Even the United Kingdom is not supporting the U.S. as a result of a parliamentary decision.
The People of the United States Do Not Want War
According to opinion polls, 80 percent of U.S. citizens are opposed to war. In addition, there are strategic risks in Syria that are not comparable to what was faced in Lıbya. For example, as a result of Syria, the U.S. runs the risk of having a conflict with Iran. Furthermore, it could increase tensions with Russia and China. In short, in the eyes of the American public, the risks in Syria are big, even if the operation to be carried out is called ''limited and punitive.'' The people of the United States are wary about being caught in another quagmire after the fiascoes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
With the American people so reluctant, it seems unrealistic to expect the approval of Congress. On top of that, Congress has a Republican-majority, which looks for any chance it can get to paint Obama into a corner. As a result, Obama is taking a big risk by going to Congress. Even if the U.S. is the current world superpower, it has experienced a blow to its image as the regional leader. If Congress does not give approval and Obama's hands are tied, the U.S. will see an even bigger blow to its credibility, prestige and deterrence from a military and strategic standpoint.
In the eyes of many foreign policy experts, Obama is taking a big risk. In the name of political stability and legitimacy, he is undermining the image of his country abroad. What is the reason for all of this? It is possible that Obama may even be looking for a political excuse to get out of a war that he has no interest in entering. One thing is for certain: Obama is taking a serious gamble in the name of democratic legitimacy. It seems that American foreign policy has not been able to find the right balance between the overly aggressive, neoconservative Bush administration and the overly passive Obama.
In short, it is a quest for maximum consistency and legitimacy. In 2003, as an ordinary state senator from Illinois, Obama opposed Bush's war in Iraq and accused the White House of failing to get the approval of Congress. Obama, who sees political consistency as a virtue, does not want to find himself in the same boat as Bush. Why then did not Obama show the same consistency when it came to Libya? The operations carried out in Libya did not require congressional approval. The Obama administration responded to that question by pointing out that Libya had the approval of the United Nations Security Council. As a result, politically there was no problem with legitimacy. However, this time there is a problem of legitimacy, both domestically and internationally. Even the United Kingdom is not supporting the U.S. as a result of a parliamentary decision.
The People of the United States Do Not Want War
According to opinion polls, 80 percent of U.S. citizens are opposed to war. In addition, there are strategic risks in Syria that are not comparable to what was faced in Lıbya. For example, as a result of Syria, the U.S. runs the risk of having a conflict with Iran. Furthermore, it could increase tensions with Russia and China. In short, in the eyes of the American public, the risks in Syria are big, even if the operation to be carried out is called ''limited and punitive.'' The people of the United States are wary about being caught in another quagmire after the fiascoes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
With the American people so reluctant, it seems unrealistic to expect the approval of Congress. On top of that, Congress has a Republican-majority, which looks for any chance it can get to paint Obama into a corner. As a result, Obama is taking a big risk by going to Congress. Even if the U.S. is the current world superpower, it has experienced a blow to its image as the regional leader. If Congress does not give approval and Obama's hands are tied, the U.S. will see an even bigger blow to its credibility, prestige and deterrence from a military and strategic standpoint.
In the eyes of many foreign policy experts, Obama is taking a big risk. In the name of political stability and legitimacy, he is undermining the image of his country abroad. What is the reason for all of this? It is possible that Obama may even be looking for a political excuse to get out of a war that he has no interest in entering. One thing is for certain: Obama is taking a serious gamble in the name of democratic legitimacy. It seems that American foreign policy has not been able to find the right balance between the overly aggressive, neoconservative Bush administration and the overly passive Obama.