This article written by Fred Fleitz, a senior vice president for a Washington, DC national security think tank, comments on President Obama 's policy decisions and their effect on the United States future in global security. Fleitz argues that these policies are in fact non-policies that do little to address the chaos that is taking place in Syria and Iraq. He views Obama 's actions as cowardly and passive and believes that they could lead to another tragedy on the same scale as 9/11.
I believe that Fleitz is applying a realist lens to his analysis on the actions of the Obama administration. Realists believe that the maximization of power is a necessary goal for each state and any sign of weakness opens a huge gap leaving room for insecurity, …show more content…
Also his failed program to train Syrian rebels left and opportunity for Russia and Iran to step up. Fleitz views this as a huge weakness leaving those small deployments vulnerable for capture with no back up and an embarrassment to American credibility. The Obama administration 's actions are passive and have a peace keeping effort driving it but from a realist point of view, they are viewed as spineless and exploitable. Fleitz believes that war is unavoidable and America needs to show their strength in the Middle East so the war is not brought overseas because peace is unachievable. Fleitz also comments on Middle East allies shifting because of Obama 's “non-policy”. There are several reasons why the allies could be shifting and it is not necessarily because of America 's lack of presence on the ground. He fears for the balance of power because recently Russia is “filling a power vacuum” and they are one of the great powers in the world that could be a huge threat to America if action is taken. He is completely skipping over the the importance of America 's strong relationship with the Syrian rebels and their caution that has been taken to avoid handing missiles directly to ISIS. Because Fleitz has applied the realist lens to his analysis, he has presented the idea that Obama is giving up on the nation …show more content…
A liberalist could also see that America 's continuous involvement before with the bush administration was actually what was hurting the balance of power and Obama taking steps towards being less involved could help. Obama has been left to clean up what the Bush administration left and has taken action to not waste American lives on the ground and has tried another, less direct, approach. It completely agreeable that conflict happens but a liberal would agree that peace is achievable and the steps that need to be taken to get there can not be as enforcing as ones to achieve complete power. Another attack like 9/11 could happen but from a liberal standpoint one could gather that the world has moved past that and global security is moving towards a more peaceful future as Obama has gone 7 years without war. Fleitz makes a comment that Syria talks have been overshadowed because it legitimized the US 's interference in Syria and Iraq. This comment is inconsistent with the rest of his view as demonstrates a liberal outlook rather than realist. The Kant theory of perpetual peace explores the idea of whether or not inference in non-liberal states is justified in the cause of war. Liberals view non-governmental organizations are independent
I believe that Fleitz is applying a realist lens to his analysis on the actions of the Obama administration. Realists believe that the maximization of power is a necessary goal for each state and any sign of weakness opens a huge gap leaving room for insecurity, …show more content…
Also his failed program to train Syrian rebels left and opportunity for Russia and Iran to step up. Fleitz views this as a huge weakness leaving those small deployments vulnerable for capture with no back up and an embarrassment to American credibility. The Obama administration 's actions are passive and have a peace keeping effort driving it but from a realist point of view, they are viewed as spineless and exploitable. Fleitz believes that war is unavoidable and America needs to show their strength in the Middle East so the war is not brought overseas because peace is unachievable. Fleitz also comments on Middle East allies shifting because of Obama 's “non-policy”. There are several reasons why the allies could be shifting and it is not necessarily because of America 's lack of presence on the ground. He fears for the balance of power because recently Russia is “filling a power vacuum” and they are one of the great powers in the world that could be a huge threat to America if action is taken. He is completely skipping over the the importance of America 's strong relationship with the Syrian rebels and their caution that has been taken to avoid handing missiles directly to ISIS. Because Fleitz has applied the realist lens to his analysis, he has presented the idea that Obama is giving up on the nation …show more content…
A liberalist could also see that America 's continuous involvement before with the bush administration was actually what was hurting the balance of power and Obama taking steps towards being less involved could help. Obama has been left to clean up what the Bush administration left and has taken action to not waste American lives on the ground and has tried another, less direct, approach. It completely agreeable that conflict happens but a liberal would agree that peace is achievable and the steps that need to be taken to get there can not be as enforcing as ones to achieve complete power. Another attack like 9/11 could happen but from a liberal standpoint one could gather that the world has moved past that and global security is moving towards a more peaceful future as Obama has gone 7 years without war. Fleitz makes a comment that Syria talks have been overshadowed because it legitimized the US 's interference in Syria and Iraq. This comment is inconsistent with the rest of his view as demonstrates a liberal outlook rather than realist. The Kant theory of perpetual peace explores the idea of whether or not inference in non-liberal states is justified in the cause of war. Liberals view non-governmental organizations are independent