Skip to main content

Obama's Syria dilemma: Becoming the president he didn't like

By Julian Zelizer, CNN contributor
September 2, 2013 -- Updated 1034 GMT (1834 HKT)
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • President Obama won support in the 2008 election with his criticism of the war in Iraq
  • Obama is not the first president to become involved in a difficult international conflict
  • How the operation in Syria unfolds will affect Obama's legacy in the White House

Editor's note: Julian Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. He is the author of "Jimmy Carter" and "Governing America."

(CNN) -- President Obama looked uncomfortable as he stood before the nation on Saturday, announcing that he would ask for a congressional resolution of support to use limited force in Syria.

Obama, who won the hearts and souls of many Americans in the 2008 election with his trenchant criticism of President George W. Bush's war in Iraq, now finds himself leading a controversial and ambiguous military operation that has little support, in Congress or abroad.

Julian Zelizer
Julian Zelizer

Asking Congress for a resolution of support is an important step in making this decision, but what will matter much more is how the operation unfolds.

In the best-case scenario, limited air strikes would achieve their intended goals and the president could bring the operation to an swift end, shifting his focus back to domestic debates. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, as well as Obama with Libya in 2011, learned that in the modern era this outcome is possible.

In the worst-case scenario, the situation will deteriorate and overshadow anything else. The violence in Syria could intensify, forcing the United States to increase its presence and become embroiled in a deadly and costly war.

Obama is not the first president to become involved in an international conflict that forces him to make decisions that fundamentally contradict what he hoped to stand for.

Syria: Who wants what after chemical weapons horror

Key Republican reacts to Obama decision
Obama seeks military action in Syria
Obama: U.S. should take military action
President Obama presses Congress on Syria

In 1917, Woodrow Wilson sent U.S. troops into World War I after having won the admiration of progressive activists during his successful run as a peace candidate the previous year. World War I proved to be highly controversial. Wilson alienated progressives through his crackdown on anti-war movements and dismissal of civil liberties. The brutality of the war disillusioned many citizens and the rationale behind U.S. involvement always remained unclear.

The president's inability to persuade the Senate to ratify the peace treaty ended his term in failure.

In 1964, Lyndon Johnson wanted to be the domestic president who finished the New Deal. Johnson initially took a hawkish stand on Vietnam, with the intention of insulating himself from right-wing attacks about being weak on national security and with the hope of keeping the U.S. out of a bigger war through firm action at the outset. He always feared suffering the fate of President Harry Truman, whose political strength plummeted after China fell to communism in 1949 and the United States became bogged down in a stalemate in Korea.

But Johnson's strategy didn't work. The Vietnam War continued to expand and gradually dwarfed Johnson's huge domestic accomplishments. He found himself bogged down in a quagmire, much worse than Truman.

Upon his election in 1976, Jimmy Carter promised to rebuild America's faith in government after Watergate and Vietnam. Carter promised to offer new approaches to domestic policy that avoided the militaristic record of his Cold War predecessors. He promoted human rights as a centerpiece of international policy and signed the Panama Canal treaties that he hoped would rebuild the image of the United States in the region. Carter also continued to try to ease strained relations with the Soviet Union, pushing for the ratification of the SALT II arms agreements.

But all of his efforts ended in November 1979 when Iranian revolutionaries took American hostages. Then the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in December 1980. Carter was forced to shift to the right by calling for increased troop presence in the Persian Gulf and higher defense spending among NATO allies. He disappointed Democratic supporters, while never winning the backing of opponents who believed that he was a failed president.

Most recently, George W. Bush found himself in a similar predicament. When Bush ran for office, evidence suggests he didn't want to become involved in prolonged and costly international operations. He had criticized Bill Clinton's "nation-building" efforts and said that the United States had to be very restrained in using its military power.

Bush was a politician who cared most about domestic policy. He wanted to re-energize the Republican Party around issues like education reform and the liberalization of immigration laws.

But 9/11 changed everything, shifting the national agenda to foreign policy. Bush focused his efforts on fighting against al Qaeda, and on a war in Afghanistan to bring down the Taliban regime that harbored terrorists. Then, when he and his advisers decided to go to war in Iraq, he moved on a path that would be disastrous.

The war damaged his presidential legacy and eroded the positive feelings many Americans had developed about his leadership after the horrendous attacks on 9/11. Then Sen. Barack Obama defeated Sen. John McCain in 2008, due in large part to his outspoken opinions against the war -- both its faulty rationale and the way in which the president ignored Congress and international opinion.

President Obama now finds himself at a potential crossroads. The initial rollout of this plan has been highly problematic. The administration has failed to build international support for this action and has offered a shifting set of reasons for using force, a strategy that has reminded many Americans of the buildup to Iraq. Obama, who has been such a strong supporter of congressional involvement, seemed to back into announcing that he would approach the House and Senate only when he had no other choice.

Even though an operation in Syria is unlikely to grow to the scale and scope of the bigger conflicts that the United States has been through, it is crucial that Obama handle this situation in the right way, learning from the mistakes of his predecessors. He needs to provide the strongest possible evidence that Syria was responsible for the chemical weapons and make it clear to the public that he does have a plan about the mission in this war.

So, what exactly are Obama's options on Syria?

He needs to marshal public support behind the operation without resorting to scare tactics. He needs to allow legislators to have a healthy debate on what to do, if there is no imminent threat.

If he does, and the operation goes relatively well, Obama can come out of this predicament in relatively good shape and possibly complete work on issues like immigration reform.

If he doesn't, Obama knows that his presidency, and his party, will be paying the consequences for many years.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Julian Zelizer.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
September 15, 2014 -- Updated 1947 GMT (0347 HKT)
LZ Granderson says Congress has rebuked the NFL on domestic violence issue, but why not a federal judge?
September 15, 2014 -- Updated 1650 GMT (0050 HKT)
Mel Robbins says the only person you can legally hit in the United States is a child. That's wrong.
September 15, 2014 -- Updated 1723 GMT (0123 HKT)
Eric Liu says seeing many friends fight so hard for same-sex marriage rights made him appreciate marriage.
September 15, 2014 -- Updated 1938 GMT (0338 HKT)
SEATTLE, WA - SEPTEMBER 04: NFL commissioner Roger Goodell walks the sidelines prior to the game between the Seattle Seahawks and the Green Bay Packers at CenturyLink Field on September 4, 2014 in Seattle, Washington. (Photo by Otto Greule Jr/Getty Images)
Martha Pease says the NFL commissioner shouldn't be judge and jury on player wrongdoing.
September 15, 2014 -- Updated 2122 GMT (0522 HKT)
It's time for a much needed public reckoning over U.S. use of torture, argues Donald P. Gregg.
September 15, 2014 -- Updated 1608 GMT (0008 HKT)
Peter Bergen says UK officials know the identity of the man who killed U.S. journalists and a British aid worker.
September 13, 2014 -- Updated 1620 GMT (0020 HKT)
Joe Torre and Esta Soler say much has been achieved since a landmark anti-violence law was passed.
September 12, 2014 -- Updated 2055 GMT (0455 HKT)
David Wheeler wonders: If Scotland votes to secede, can America take its place and rejoin England?
September 12, 2014 -- Updated 2207 GMT (0607 HKT)
Jane Stoever: Society must grapple with a culture in which 1 in 3 teen girls and women suffer partner violence.
September 12, 2014 -- Updated 2036 GMT (0436 HKT)
World-famous physicist Stephen Hawking recently said the world as we know it could be obliterated instantaneously. Meg Urry says fear not.
September 12, 2014 -- Updated 2211 GMT (0611 HKT)
Bill Clinton's speech accepting the Democratic nomination for president in 1992 went through 22 drafts. But he always insisted on including a call to service.
September 12, 2014 -- Updated 2218 GMT (0618 HKT)
Joe Amon asks: What turns a few cases of disease into thousands?
September 11, 2014 -- Updated 1721 GMT (0121 HKT)
Sally Kohn says bombing ISIS will worsen instability in Iraq and strengthen radical ideology in terrorist groups.
September 11, 2014 -- Updated 1730 GMT (0130 HKT)
Analysts weigh in on the president's plans for addressing the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
September 11, 2014 -- Updated 1327 GMT (2127 HKT)
Artist Prune Nourry's project reinterprets the terracotta warriors in an exhibition about gender preference in China.
September 10, 2014 -- Updated 1336 GMT (2136 HKT)
The Apple Watch is on its way. Jeff Yang asks: Are we ready to embrace wearables technology at last?
ADVERTISEMENT