There has been much criticism over President Obamas failure to take extreme measures to control the actions of international relations. Under anarchy, there is no real judge of the international political arena, but the United States has always seemed to fill that role with her countless involvement in foreign relations that arguably do not have much of a direct impact on us, such as the Vietnam war which ostensibly was supposed to bring a halt to communism. Under realist theory, there is no need for States to intervene in other states affairs to that extent, as states will do as they please no matter what- and a country must be able to defend itself, as no one else will be able to completely defend it. Obama reflects this, telling the UN general assembly that
“His country had learned that it cannot by itself impose stability on a foreign land.”
Critics seem to be voicing opinions in opposition to realist theory when countless critics have voiced intense disapproval at Obamas decision to not become overly involved with Vladimir Putin and his International conquests, which have become increasingly destructive. On September 30th, Putin led the bombing attack of sunni rebels in Syria, some of whom were backed by the United States. A critic in The New York Times calls this “The latest example of American Humiliation abroad.” Russia has also recently invaded Crimea. There is fear that lack of American Intervention in world affairs will cause further chaos. The Economist article author explains the way the world may see Americas lack of intervention as that of
America throws up its hands; that regional powers, sensing American disengagement, will be sucked into a free-for-all; and that Russia’s intervention will make a bloody war bloodier still. Unless Mr Obama changes course, expect more deaths, refugees and extremism.
Obamas foreign policy, in the eyes of critics, has failed. This is the biggest action that Russia has taken in the Middle East since the Soviet Union was evicted in the 1970s. Fox news criticizes the United States as “giving up on being the world superpower.” If history has any lessons to show us, it is that this would have very negative connotations, as a unipolar world is much safer than a multipolar world. Does the world see Obamas as sophisticated for not becoming involved, or simply weak? Is it possible for Obama to contain the spread of destruction, or is he correct in saying that he cannot impose stability on a foreign land? Perhaps Americas leaders will perpetually be criticized whether they choose to intervene in foreign affairs or not- a lose lose situation.