Leading From Behind at Home

What are the consequences of a military strike on Syria?

By Doug Stuart, professor of political science and international studies; J. William Stuart and Helen D. Stuart Chair in International Studies, Business and Management; adjunct professor, U.S. Army War College

To the extent that we can speak about an Obama Doctrine in foreign affairs, it is captured by the phrase "leading from behind." Since coming to office, Obama has attempted to ration American resources and repair America's reputation abroad by actively seeking the support of other nations to accomplish its goals. This strategy served him well in the case of the Libyan intervention, in which the U.S. played an indispensable supporting role in a 19-nation coalition led by France and Britain. The strategy of leading from behind has also been effective in Washington's ongoing 'rebalancing' campaign in the Asia-Pacific, where the U.S. is supporting efforts by friends and allies to bolster regional security.

President Obama has not been consistent in his efforts to lead from behind, however. On some issues relating to the "long war" against terrorists, Obama has been at least as unilateralist as his predecessor. He also has been reticent to lead from behind at home, by actively engaging Congress on issues relating to use of military force.

In the wake of the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons, President Obama's first instinct was the lead from behind, but he was frustrated to discover that America would be (nearly) alone if it chose to take punitive military action against the Assad regime. Under these circumstances, he chose to reverse course and reach out to Congress. In doing so, he was returning to a principle that he articulated as a presidential candidate in 2007: "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Obama's decision to engage Congress at this stage in the Syrian situation is a commendable step toward a rebalanced relationship between the two branches of government. If it can be sustained it will be good for our democracy and good for America's image abroad. But this assumes that Obama actually views the Syrian case as a precedent, rather than a one-time marketing ploy.

Read more Dickinson faculty perspectives on Syria.

Published October 31, 2013