The Obama doctrine of inaction

As I have written in previous columns, there are consequences to electing a weak and naïve commander-in-chief. As much as I wish it were not true, we continue to face this reality, and each week, Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to test just how far he can push this administration. You can just about pick any month of any year throughout this presidency and find an example. When President Obama visited Estonia to reassure it of the United States’ commitment to its NATO allies, it took Moscow less than 48 hours to break international law and sneak into Estonia’s territory to abduct an Estonian citizen on fabricated espionage charges. When Putin lifted an arms hold and sold S-300 missiles to Iran, Obama responded that he was “frankly surprised that it held this long.” When Obama warned Putin that “there will be costs” for Russian aggression in Ukraine, Putin looked no further than the “costs” Obama imposed on Assad for crossing his chemical weapons red line not once, but more than fourteen times—and as the Kremlin laughed, Putin moved in to annex Crimea and invade Ukraine.

Should I keep going? From appeasement all the way back in 2009 regarding missile defense systems in Eastern Europe to caving in to Russian/Iranian demands during the nuclear deal talks, President Obama has allowed Putin to continue pushing his geopolitical interests at the expense of our allies and ourselves.

Now, filling the vacuum and inaction that the administration has left in Syria, Russia is rapidly building up its military capabilities within the country in defense of President Bashar al-Assad. As the Wall Street Journal reports, “Defense officials said over the past two weeks Russia has stepped up development of an airfield near the port city of Latakia by sending in housing for up to 2,000 people, attack and transport helicopters, artillery, tanks and armored personnel carriers.” Just over this weekend, Moscow brought in 24 ground-attack planes, the amount of attack helicopters grew to 15 and the amount of marines based in Syria has more than doubled. And while there is much more that I could list here, it is clear that as Bashar al-Assad loses more and more land, Russia is pouring in more and more resources to keep the embattled dictator in control.

Not only has Moscow funded this war that has seized the lives of 250,000 and displaced 7.6 million Syrians, but the Kremlin is now stepping in directly to ensure the success of Assad’s forces who, for the past four years, have committed unimaginable atrocities. In just one province, in just one year, chlorine barrel bombs dropped from helicopters were used by Assad to take the lives of more than 3,000 civilians. Horrifying, yes. But not surprising when dealing with a dictator who drops explosive barrels filled with shrapnel on a civilian market and then drops a subsequent one when folks rush in to rescue survivors.

Not only has the administration permitted such atrocities to endure, its inaction has allowed the Kremlin to bolster Assad’s regime. Although President Obama may portray it as such, engagement in Syria does not necessarily mean sending thousands of our troops into hostile lands. There are many strategic actions that could’ve been taken by the administration to prevent countless deaths and certainly the rising Russian influence we see now. Just implementing a “No Fly Zone” would have saved thousands of lives immediately, as a majority of Assad’s mass murder campaigns are committed from the air. Even if the president didn’t have the will to implement this zone or any type of safe zone on the Turkish border, he could have taken independent actions to prevent Assad from committing horrible war crimes—destroying the helicopters from which chemical weapons and chlorine bombs are dropped on civilians, is just one example. Even Hillary Clinton advocated arming and training moderate Syrian rebels in 2012.

Regardless, our lack of any involvement has created a vacuum that is being filled by Putin’s personal geopolitical interests. Most obviously, the administration has allowed Putin to place his own military straight into the heart of the Middle East. As we quickly learned from Crimea, Russia very much values the strategic placement of their bases and naval ports. With his military in Syria, Putin is simultaneously transforming Syrian bases into his own and expanding his only Mediterranean naval facility. Less noticeable, however, is Moscow’s attempt to re-legitimize itself as a global power, especially after being internationally isolated following the Ukrainian invasion. The same way Putin mediated the chemical weapons situation after President Obama flailed, Putin has come into Syria as a key international mediator amid a terrible refugee crisis and the United States’ failure to defeat the Islamic State. Finally, Russia is also sending a message as to who folks in this tough region of the world can rely on. Is it the United States who just handed over $150 billion to Iran or Russia who has stood by its ally Assad since the beginning of this war? Egypt has certainly chosen, and its relationship with Russia has never been closer in the past 40 years.

Barak Biblin is a Trinity sophomore. His column runs on alternate Wednesdays.