Obama and Romney, deepening crisis in Syria is a no-win political situation

Escalating violence in Syria has become the ultimate no-win political situation for President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney: The deepening crisis is impossible for their campaigns to ignore but too complex for them to articulate an easy solution.

Romney has seized on the crackdown in Syria as an opportunity to dent Obama’s foreign policy credentials, painting him as weak and indecisive in the face of more than a year of violence. But Romney’s vague prescriptions for what he would do differently have opened him to criticism from the Obama campaign that he is weighing in from the sidelines with “nothing but tough talk” while the president does the real work of managing the crisis.

0
Comments
Weigh InCorrections?
Personal Post
More from PostPolitics
Scott Walker leads by seven in new poll

Rachel Weiner MAY 30
Gov. Scott Walker has widened his lead over Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett heading into next Tuesday’s recall election, a new poll finds.
Another dubious Romney Bain claim

Glenn Kessler MAY 30
FACT CHECKER | Does it mean anything to say that 80 percent of the investments had revenue growth?
Pete Hoekstra’s slippery birther slope

Aaron Blake 2:35 AM ET
Michigan GOP Senate candidate Pete Hoekstra is proposing a new panel to verify the citizenship of federal political candidates, but he’s facing some tough sledding.

The violence in Syria hasn’t captured the full attention of an American electorate consumed by the economy and other domestic issues. But the barbs being traded between the campaigns try to raise questions of leadership for the two men battling for a job filled with unexpected challenges.

Romney zeroes in on what he portrays as a lack of leadership in Obama’s handling of Syria’s 14-month government crackdown on opponents to the regime. Following a weekend massacre of more than 100 Syrian civilians, including dozens of women and children, Romney said the president’s weakness had resulted in a “policy of paralysis.”

In turn, the Obama campaign has sought to cast the president as the one bearing the responsibility for actually handling the crisis. While Obama “has demonstrated his ability to work with world leaders to resolve international conflicts,” campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said, Romney has a “rudderless foreign policy agenda.”

The heated rhetoric between the rival campaigns belies the fact that there are significant gaps in both candidates’ policy positions on Syria and few differences in the specifics they have offered. And that vagueness does little to shed light on how Obama may approach Syria in the coming months and how Romney would behave if elected this fall.

Both Obama and Romney have called for Syrian President Bashar Assad to step down and clear the way for a political transition. Mindful of the war-weary American public, neither candidate supports direct U.S. military engagement in Syria. And both agree on the need to pressure Russia, which holds veto power on the U.N. Security Council, to end its support of Assad’s regime, though Romney argues that Obama hasn’t been tough enough with Moscow.

Romney, however, has called on the U.S. and its partners to “arm the opposition so they can defend themselves.” But he has offered little sense of what he would do if the ensuing battles didn’t push Assad from power or, if they did, what type of political transition he would support.

Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Romney is unlikely to articulate a fuller vision for Syria before the election because he doesn’t want to own the problem before he needs to.

“His instinct is not to define a view,” Alterman said. “His instinct is to attack the status quo without really presenting a coherent alternative.”