Vladimir Putin: president of Russia, president of a country with a GDP of roughly 12 percent of America, president of a country teetering on totalitarianism or authoritarianism rather than democracy and president of a country that just outplayed the U.S. And it didn’t even need to happen.
Previously, I advocated for noninvolvement in Syria, ending our nanny-like supervision of these types of conflicts. It seems to be a likely outcome, fortunately, although the threat of force remains “real.”
The Syrian episode showcases just how, like most public situations, people rely on gamesmanship, showboating and good ole fashioned political maneuvering. Just look at Putin’s op-ed in The New York Times making his case to the American people and our leaders. Unprecedented.
But what American leaders? I’ve seen none here. Leading doesn’t entail being made to look foolish. Either outcome here is potentially troubling for future war hawk presidents: whether Congress votes down the action and President Obama does it anyway, or it’s voted down and Obama does nothing. I say good, for the better. That’s how presidential checks and balances work. The president serves. And if he wants the American people to engage in a conflict but is voted down, we don’t go. It’s pretty complicated, they say, but that makes it pretty simple.
Putin has done everything right here. Thrust his country into a spotlight saying, “We’re back and relevant; the U.S. is not in charge.” Stating that the U.S. shouldn’t use exceptionalism to describe its people or history, using words like “equal,” “Lord” and “democracy” like he understands and actually believes in them.
Hypocrisy. His shirtless picture on a bear only outweighs the absurdity in Putin’s words. Yet he makes sense to American people, eliciting head nods while reading his piece, even better than Obama has been able to do while making speeches of late.
While the media pines for a win-loss scenario, we should know that it’s not about winning or losing if you don’t thrust yourself into a superhero “save the world” mentality. If Obama had simply come out at the onset of the Syrian crisis and stated that America condemns Bashar al-Assad’s actions and the responsibility rests with those in the surrounding region to end the conflict in order to ensure their own safety, we would be done. That responsibility doesn’t rest on our shoulders. There’s nothing that can be done. Except perhaps, facilitating diplomacy to foster the chemical weapons deal like the one brokered by none other than Russia or setting a much loftier goal of peace negotiations between the rebels and Assad.
Just look at the 15-year Lebanese civil war from 1975 to 1990. They just had random bombings the other day, in fact. Negotiating peace deals is what prevents killings — not killing Syrians so that Syrians will stop killing other Syrians. That model won’t work.
Presidents, while remaining strong, can be humble. Humble to the will of the American people and Congress. This humility doesn’t show signs of weakness, but of intelligence and understanding, a silent confidence behind the scenes with world leaders. So they, and their citizens, understand our viewpoints because of what we don’t have to do and say. World leaders should understand us for our clear stances and doctrines dealing with these tough issues. Obama has muddled this even worse than Bush — at least Bush was consistent in his overreach with American military, if consistency counts for anything when in the wrong.
While well played, don’t be fooled by Putin’s intentions and false words. Syria is their last military base outside the former Soviet Union. Our countries regard radical Islam as a grave threat, but we can accomplish more to lessen this threat with noninterventionism than anything else. Leading from behind is often seen as a weak policy, but you don’t have to be behind if you never strapped yourself to the issue from the start. We’ve got bigger fish to fry here at home. And wouldn’t you know it, Obama is trying to shift back to his domestic agenda — I wonder why.
Putin can sense clumsy foreign policy. As a friend put it, his actions are Machiavellian in nature. It’s not bad to acknowledge the competency of a competitor; we just need make sure we learn from it. Learn how its actions were well played up to this point. Well played indeed, sir.
Cory Ferraez is a third-year law student from Columbus.
