I saw this on BBC and thought you should see it: Obama’s Syria legacy: Measured diplomacy, strategic explosion.
The writer, Barbara Plett Usher, in this BBC News article, asked a critical question i have been ruminating over for very long time in the foreign policy segment of my cerebral cortex: How did President Barack Obama, who took office espousing a new era of engagement with the world end up a spectator to this century’s greatest humanitarian catastrophe, in syria?
Indeed, “Syria exploded in strategic ways,” says Vali Nasr, who’s written a book arguing that the president’s policies have diminished America’s leadership role in the world. “It empowered Russia and Iran, produced ISIS, strengthened al-Qaeda and created the refugee crisis which became a strategic threat to Europe.”
Obama’s critics have also faulted him for a detached, analytical leadership style they say is unsuited to geopolitical jousting. “He wasn’t good at brinkmanship, it wasn’t his inclination,” says Ian Bremmer, president of the political risk firm Eurasia Group.
“I’ve always thought [George W] Bush was a leader who didn’t like to think, and Obama a thinker who didn’t like to lead.” In Syria, his administration left a perception of American weakness.
Despite the personality chasm between the cerebral lawyer exiting the White House and the reality TV star entering it, Barack Obama and Donald Trump are on the same page when it comes to non-interventionism.
In that sense, Trump’s “America First” foreignpolicy is expected to be an extension of President Obama’s.
Read the complete article here.