The Creation of the Unwinnable Presidency

So here he finds himself, going to the American public this Tuesday night to make the case for taking military action in Syria. The Civil War in Syria, which this July went over 100,000 deaths, has been a non-existent topic in the national debate for much of the time it has been raging on. On August 21st, however, footage began to pour out showing civilians dying, apparently the victims of chemical weapons strikes. The US government quickly began to place the blame on the Syrian leadership, including Syrian President al-Assad. The Syrian government had been collecting chemical weapons for years, and had even (allegedly) used the weapons (admittedly, in much smaller doses) already during this conflict.

Today, in an interview with Charlie Rose, Assad not only denied that he was behind the chemical weapons strikes, but also indicated that the evidence that chemical weapons were used was not irrefutable. Assad's administration, hedging their bets, has also indicated that if the weapons were used it was the rebel forces which used them. Into this mess walks President Obama.

He tried and failed to build an international consensus that taking military action against the Assad regime would be prudent. In fact, he ended up with so little support that he is now going to Congress to get approval to take these measures, although he could very easily take action without Congressional approval should the administration deem it necessary for American security. Once it became obvious that the House of Representatives (at least) would be unlikely to back the military action, Obama was left no other option but to go to the well one more time and take his case to the American people.

We have allowed the creation of an unwinnable Presidency in this country. Setting aside, for the moment, the question of if a military strike in Syria is justifiable (let alone if it would be beneficial), let's look at this equation from a strictly political standpoint. There are a number of possible actions that the USA could take in Syria:

1. Do nothing, stay out of the conflict entirely
2. Make small, "behind the scenes" moves designed to influence the outcome of the conflict (ie arm the rebels, send supplies, etc), but make no overt actions
3. Denounce the violence on the international stage and take action to damage Syria economically (sanctions, embargo, etc) or militarily (more directly arming the rebels or influencing those supplying Syria with arms not to do so)
4. Take limited military action, such as enforcing a no-fly zone (ideally risking no lives on either side from US action)
5. Take more involved military action such as cruise missile strikes (risking lives on the Syrian side, including the risk of innocent civilian deaths)
6. Take additional military action such as air strikes (risking lives on both sides)
7. Engage in a limited "boots on the ground" campaign (perhaps to train the rebels or to secure chemical weapons supplies)
8. Engage in a broad "boots on the ground" campaign (highest risk of loss of life on the US side)

All of these actions carry with them a certain amount of risk, even doing nothing (case in point: Nazi Germany). At the present time the USA is pretty firmly sitting in option three, but is looking to take steps to move towards option five or six. Now, for the political no-win situation the President finds himself in. Suppose that Obama looked at the information indicating that their were chemical weapons used, and did nothing. Why, he's a do-nothing President who is soft on terrorism and doesn't stand up for innocent victims of a dictator. Suppose that he make the case for limited military action. Why, now he's a President who only takes half-measures and who is putting the US into situations where we shouldn't be. It's easy to see how he found himself here: "Dubya" used every bit of international trust when it comes to these things, and China and Russia gain a great deal by creating a "powerless" super-power. Make no mistake, the Republicans will decry Obama now for wanting to take military action, but in 2014 will turn around and either a) criticize him for not doing enough, or b) for doing too much.

A no win situation through and through. I feel for anyone who takes on this job. I wonder if he ever looks at it and says "only three years left..."? I can't help but imagine he does.