Will 2017 Be the Year the US Goes to War With Syria?

Given the likely possibility that Hillary Clinton could become the next President of the United States, it is crucial to understand the implications of such an outcome. While Clinton and Obama share parallel views on many core issues, largely due to the fact that both are from the same political party, the most prolific change in policy that we would see from a Clinton presidency would in foreign policy.

Characterized as hawkish, Hillary Clinton’s perspective of the world is the antithesis of what is President Barack Obama’s viewpoint. Envisioning a world in which the United States takes the back seat in world affairs, so to speak, Obama’s presidency has set a legacy of complacency and dovish policy decisions.

One of the biggest blunders of Obama’s foreign policy legacy was his refusal to act on Syria’s President Bashar Al-Assad’s crossing of his “red line.” Early in the Syrian Civil War, Obama had kept a relatively low footprint in Syria, refusing to be entangled in the conflict for fear of the consequences that could take hold. This pragmatic way of decision making is certainly commendable, weighing the benefits versus the costs. One cannot fault President Obama for coming to the conclusion that it is within the best interests of the United States to attempt to play a more conciliatory role in the war rather than an aggressive one.

However, when threats are cast out, it is equally as important in global affairs to act on them or risk a loss of legitimacy. From a realistic point of view, countries are exploitative in nature. So when a Country A repeatedly threatens to attack Country B if certain conditions are met, but in the end Country A does nothing, would it not be logical to assume that Country B would view this bluff as a sign of weakness and indecisiveness? Would this behavior not be expected in the future should another threat be imposed by Country A?

This is precisely what occurred when President Bashar Al-Assad used chemical weapons against his own citizens in the year 2013. Expecting a harsh reaction from the United States, Assad was instead met with an empty threat. The United States regressed on its threat and in the eyes of many of the United States allies, the perception of the United States as a nation that does not stand by idly in the event of crises ceased to exist.

Even recently, a large contingent of State Department officials have wholly disagreed with the policies set in place by the Obama administration calling for direct military intervention against Syria. Hilary Clinton spared no fury in her assessment of Obama’s foreign policy, calling it a “Don’t do stupid stuff” approach to the world.

Clinton has always been regarded as hawkish in foreign policy all the way back to the Iraq War in 2003, voting in favor of intervention. So it would be no surprise to many that this behavior would follow her in the event of a presidency.

Though it is far fetched at best, one potential candidate for Secretary of Defense for the Hillary cabinet is a woman named Michele Flourney. She has, in the past, called for “limited military coercion” to remove President Bashar Al-Assad from power by instituting a no-fly zone in the country as well as sending a larger force of troops to Syria in order to remove ISIS from the country.

Hillary herself has supported such actions before, calling for a no-fly zone over Syria. Obama, as it has shown, would never contemplate such an idea, considering it to be dangerous to the United State’s image.

While the United States has supplied rebel groups in Syria, the effect of these groups is minuscule to the effect of a direct engagement with the Syrian military. Even more so, most of the groups supported by the United States are limited to fighting the Islamic State rather than the Syrian military.

In terms of foreign policy, Hillary Clinton is the converse of Obama. Being the realist that she is, she is a strong proponent of utilizing American military power to advance its interests, viewing the alternative choice as categorically weak. Obama, on the other hand, seems to think that doing nothing is better than something.

Featured Image via Wikipedia