Four reasons why Obama's critics on Syria have it wrong

Critics who say Obama lost foreign-policy ground to Russia, Assad, and Putin on the Syria crisis have it just plain wrong. Here are four reasons why the critics are mistaken.

4. Overestimate Russian foreign-policy potential

As most onlookers – especially Obama’s critics – know, Russia’s and Mr. Putin’s goals in Syria have little to do with humanitarian concern for the Syrian people. Rather, Russia’s main goal is to use the Syrian crisis as an elevator to rise to the level of a global power, and install Putin as its power broker. Critics argue that by agreeing to Russia’s deal, Obama looks weak and only furthers Russia’s global ambitions.

The problem is that Russia lacks not only the economic and military strength needed for global power standing (its economy is not much larger than that of Mexico and about one-eighth the size of the American economy), but it also lacks a plausible global model with which to attract a following. Internally, Russia is an illiberal, corrupt oligarchy. Externally it seeks to extend its international shadow as a means of strengthening a tenuous domestic legitimacy. Its global following, if it can be called that, is comprised of regimes such as Assad’s Syria, Iran, North Korea, Belarus, and Chavez’s Venezuela.

Ironically, and at the continuing loss of Syrian lives and dislocations, the Russian decision to join in eliminating Assad’s chemical weapons allows the Obama administration a breathing space in which it can continue its shift to Asia and focus on strengthening the Syrian opposition. Both promise a different and more hopeful outcome for the US over the long-term than Obama’s Syria critics have grasped.

Edward Haley is director of the Center for Human Rights Leadership and W.M. Keck Foundation Professor of International Strategic Studies at Claremont McKenna College.

4 of 4

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.