Syria, Realists and Barack Obama

            Of the many responsibilities laid upon a nation's leader, those involving international affairs tend to hold the most weight. In the case of Syria's use of chemical weapons against its own people, President Obama was placed in a difficult position. With the notion of turning a blind eye being all but out of the question, the "correct" form of intervention quickly became a very heated topic between different schools of diplomatic thought. In his address to the UN General Assembly on September 10, 2013, President Obama explained his justifications for any potential intervention in Syria. Although the casual listener might have wholeheartedly agreed with Obama's approach, Realists and Buddhists would have very different critiques of his perspective. A Realist would be frustrated by Obama's call to take action based on ethics, not our nation's self-interest, while a Buddhist would be distressed by the President's lightly veiled threat to use military force as well as any possible ulterior motives the United States might have.
             While President Obama readily justifies interference in Syria on grounds that there is a moral obligation to help innocent people, a realist would argue that instead of focusing on the humanitarian side of the crisis, he instead needs to be focused on two main goals: maintaining the United States' global power and defending the nation from terrorism. In his address to the United Nations on President Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons on his own Syrian citizens, Obama states: "We are committed to working this political trek. And, as we pursue a settlement, let's remember this is not a zero sum endeavor. We're no longer in a cold war. There's no great game to be won, nor does America have any interest in Syria beyond the well being of its people, the stability of its neighbors, the elimination of chemical weapons and insuring that it does not become a safe haven for terrorists.