Obama Administration’s embarrassing foreign policy fumble


Just days after an U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power claimed that the United States had “exhausted the alternatives” to a military strike against Syria, the Obama Administration is seriously considering a deal brokered by Russia that may prevent a war.

The details are still in the works, but the deal, which Bashar al-Assad’s regime has accepted, would require that the Syrian government to relinquish its supply of chemical weapons to international intermediaries. Syria also says that it will ratify the chemical weapons ban treaty.

The Obama Administration remains skeptical, though the President has called the proposed deal a “positive development,” and wants the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution that would make the deal enforceable. Meanwhile, members of the United States Senate are working on a new resolution that would authorize force against Syria in the event that Assad’s government doesn’t turnover its chemical weapons arsenal.

But there is still a lot of haranguing over the language of the resolution that may put it in jeopardy. Russia wants the United States and other governments to rule out the threat of military action against Syria as a means to ensure that they honor their side of the agreement. The New York Times notes that the top Russian diplomat says his government opposes any U.N. resolution that authorizes force against Syria.

Though the White House is still pressing for authorization for military strikes against Syria, there is little question that the Obama Administration has beclowned themselves on the international stage.

Shortly after the attack, President Obama was ready to launch military strikes, no questions asked. The White House only delayed the strikes after significant, bipartisan outcry from members of Congress urging the White House to seek authorization, though the still said they may bomb Syria even if the AUMF didn’t pass.

At this point, the Obama Administration is actually trying to claim some credit for brokering the deal, which is based off a hypothetical proposed last week by Secretary of State John Kerry that dismissed as a solution.

This is nothing short of an effort to save face. Why wasn’t President Obama’s initial inclination to let a diplomatic solution play out rather than going to war? As noted, they’ve said that they had “exhausted the alternatives” to war, but that’s obviously not the case.

This wasn’t some stroke of brilliant diplomacy. The Obama Administration was prepared to take the United States to war against a nation that represented no actual threat to our national security.

President Obama has ungracefully fallen into this situation by accident, giving both Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Assad a victory on the way down.

The good news is that the United States may avoid another unnecessary, misguided war in the Middle East. The bad news is that President Obama’s attempt to look tough on the world stage has completely backfired.

The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.