http://justiceinconflict.org/2012/03/19/syria-appeasement-in-disguise/
In class, we’ve been talking a lot about appeasement. Its what we’ve been using to test Trubawitz’s theoretical approach to foreign policy. Here they not the complexities of intervention in Syria. It brought up what could be a flaw in the theory. What if the country had lots of slack and was in favor of guns but had to choose appeasement or other, more peaceful approaches to foreign policy, like buck passing, because it would be unwise to take action? The article notes that President Obama worries about creating a civil war in Syria. That’s not to say he’s in favor of more butter than guns. That may be a point of contention as some would say that Obama is predominantly about butter. Not to get off topic, I would say that the suspension of reality in this one way reveals what could be a flaw in Trubawitz’s logic and that is the point of this post, to highlight the flaw.
Using Trubowitz’s logic: The US are in a position of considerable geopolitcal slack, therefore it is possible that Obama’s party coalition (democrats) are in favor of butter over guns. Besides stating that he doesn’t want to create a civil war in Syria, which is arguably already being waged, he may be concerned that a push into Syria would affect the support of his base. Obama’s poll numbers – 49% foreign policy approval rating (NBC/WSJ poll) and 52% job approval rating (Associated Press-Gfk poll) – might suggest that he is not in a position to take a drastic stand on Syrian domestic conflict. It’s domestic nature question US non-intervention as an act of appeasement; it’s possible affects on U.S. geopoltical slack needing to be more dutifully considered. Obama may also be wary of taking action during an election year.