Why Syria is an Election Problem
With the massive death toll continuing to rise in Syria, the Obama administration seems hesitant to even mention Syria or the use of military force as an option to end the massacres in the middle-eastern country. With Americans war-weary from the last decade of combat over seas, because many military men and women who have sacrificed their lives for freedom and for America, the citizens of this nation are just as hesitant to deal with another conflict anywhere else in the world. The Obama administration seems to have a wobbly foreign policy stance on when America should or should not intervene. It was the policy of the Obama administration to step in during Libya and Uganda, yet with around 9,000 dead already in Syria, the Obama administration seems weak on whether they are actually strong on foreign policy. With both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars winding down, which President Obama said he would try and accomplish in his first term as President, even though that was already arranged by the Bush administration. President Obama does not want another conflict, which could hurt his re-election chances. War would not do well to strengthen his base support of voters at this time during the election process.
The Romney camp is in just as a tough camp for many of the reasons that I have already laid out. America does not want another conflict that does not really have anything to do with our national interests. However, if Romney starts to go on the offensive, which the Obama administration is most likely waiting for, so that they can just try and paint Romney as another war hungry Republican. Mitt Romney could also capitalize on the lack of leadership that President Obama has shown in this conflict in Syria, IF he plays it correctly and makes the case of consistency and lack of leadership, and not of America needing another war. If Mitt Romney ties President Obama’s lack of leadership on the economy, he could use it as an example to show that he not only lacks leadership on the economy, but as well as foreign policy.
Each Presidential camp has a tough choice to make, President Obama, has really only one case to make if he begins to talk about it, and that is, why would should intervene. As I said earlier, Mitt Romney must play his cards correctly or it could be a major disadvantage to his campaign. If the middle east continues to get worse, President Obama will have a tough time avoiding the issue all together. If the Syrian government continues to slaughter its people along with Egypt working toward and election that could bring about the rise of the new Ottoman Empire, known as the Muslim Brotherhood, that could sink the Obama camp, if Romney plays it correctly.
President Obama, has said many times publicly that the Syrian President Assad, can either; “lead [the] transition or get out of the way.” President Obama speaking out about how terrible this slaughter is in Syria, does nothing if he is not willing to back up his words. The more he speaks and does nothing the weaker he looks to the rest of the world. All Bark and No Bite. Maybe Libya and Uganda were only undertaken because one: President Obama was able to “lead from behind” and not risk much of American assets, and two: election was not right around corner as it is right now.
Whatever the case may be, Mitt Romney, needs to come out strong and fast with an articulate message of his leadership qualities and how he will have a strong and unwavering foreign policy. Something to draw another contrast between himself and President Obama. If not Syria could be a major election issue, if Mitt Romney does not strike first.