Editors Note: My former colleague at the Political Hurricane, Dave Trotter submitted this column for my review to publish at TFS about Syria. I have reviewed it chosen to run it as it gives a different perspective then the articles we have previously run here. I invite any and all points of view. So if you are inclined to write about Syria from another perspective, or about any other issue. The Syria situation is difficult and is the most pressing matter facing our nation and perhaps our planet at this time. I know my view that the Obama Administration has bungled this issue beyond recognition is not popular among activist Democrats (though many in the professional media seem to share my point of view) and I invite contrasting points of view. Dave Trotter here has taken a completely different perspective than I have towards Syria but also has assessed President Obama’s motives in a way that we have not yet at this site. 

During the years of the Bush Administration, the term “neo-con” was thrown around in progressive circles to show disapproval of Bush’s policies. Yet, nobody seemed to understand what this new term meant. Yes, it had the word “conservative” in it, so it had to be “bad”. But ask the average rank-and-file progressive what “neo-conservative” actually meant, and you would mostly be greeted with an awkward answer or a blank stare.

Therefore, understanding the meaning of neo-conservatism is very important. According to Mohammed Nuruzzaman and his article Beyond the Realist Theories: ‘Neo-Conservative Realism’ and the American Invasion of Iraq, neo-conservatism is driven by two principal elements. The first element is the idea of “American Exceptionalism”. The second element is the will to engage hostile regimes (Nuruzzaman 2007, 249).

If we look at the position that President Obama is taking on Syria, the neo-conservative mold is already being set. The second element according to Nuruzzaman, which is the will the engage hostile regimes, has already been met. There is no doubt that the al-Assad regime is hostile to not only the United States, but to its own citizens. This was evident in the gassing of thousands of their citizens, which was confirmed last week.

Last night, President Obama clarified his stance on the first element, which is American exceptionalism. The President stated, in just one paragraph, the following:

“My fellow Americans, for nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security. This has meant doing more than forging international agreements — it has meant enforcing them. The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world is a better place because we have borne them.”

In one paragraph, which was hidden among all of the other paragraphs, Obama confirms that action taken in Syria will result in a Syria that will honor American excptionalism. The idea is that “we”, the Americans, are the ones that “build democracy” or “make the world a better place”. Therefore, President Obama’s reasons for taking action against Syria are purely neo-conservatism.

Of course, progressives who support the president and who are also on his side on this issue might want to differ. They might say “Bush put troops on the ground and Obama isn’t going to do that”. But whether troops are on the ground or not doesn’t’ define someone as a neo-con. By definition, President Obama has already taken this neo-conservative stand. It isn’t a matter of “opinion” whether President Obama is acting as a neo-conservative, but instead by a clearly defined definition, which Nuruzzaman lays out.

But what about other schools of theory regarding international relations? Does President Obama possibly fall in another school of thought and not that of neo-conservatism? Well, let’s look at the two main schools of though.

First, let’s tackle neo-liberalism. Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye would argue (as do almost all neo-liberal thinkers, if not all) that states practice complex interdependence, which means that all states have some sort of connection to one another. In tackling the neo-liberal point of view, channels of communication and diplomacy is the main goal. Usually this diplomacy is practiced though back channels which is carried through institutions, such as the United Nations. Because of this, there is less of a likelihood of conflict.

If the United States is successful in diplomacy without a single bit of military action being taken, then it could be argued that President Obama conducted hard-handed neo-liberalism. Still, he has already said that is has approved strategic strikes. Therefore, we have to wait in the coming days to see if diplomacy works.

Another major IR theory is that of realism. In realism, it is argued that humans act in their own self interests, and only makes decisions which are rational. Rationality is important because emotional reasons to go to war aren’t always rational. One of the fathers of classical realism, Hans Morgenthau, even states in his groundbreaking book Politics Among Nations that morality should not be a reason for a state to consider a certain action, as it does not necessarily adhere to the realist idea of seeking power and acting in one’s self interest (1948). Still, President Obama has already stated that the main reason for the United States to strike Syria is because of the gassing of Syrians by their government. This means that the president is making his judgment not because of self-interest reasons, but because of moral reason. This, in turn, means he is not acting as a realist.

If we wish to take realism one step further, we can look at neo-realism. Neo-realism looks at much of the same concepts of classical realism, but fine tunes the process, concentrating on states being the main actors seeking self-interest, whereas classical realism focuses more on human nature. Still, strong neo-realists such as Kenneth Waltz came out against the invasion of Iraq and have claimed that neo-conservative realism is not a form of neo-realism.

Of course, there are many other concepts of international relations theory that we can talk about, but many of the others fall somewhere in between these two in that spectrum. Still, the path that President Obama has taken is that of a neo-conservative. True, he might not be considered a neo-con yet, but if one bomb drops on Syria, he confirms that label.

As I mentioned in this article, neo-conservative realism is not some sort of “opinion”, but an actually defined concept. This is very similar to the word “recession”. Yes, the economy might not be great, but there is a definition regarding the word “recession” which determines if a state is in a recession or not. For many years, two consecutive dips in the GDP determined at recession. Now, that isn’t always the case. But even so, the term is defined and not a matter of “opinion”.

Those who support President Obama’s decision to strike Syria can no longer complain about the neo-conservative years of George W. Bush. Yes, they can state their moral, or even political, reasons why they support the president. But still, they are, by definition, supporting neo-conservative realist policies of the Bush Administration. I am not arguing if the neo-conservative case for attacking Syria is right or wrong. I personally am on the side of doing something, mostly because of moral reasons (which is odd because I usually agree with realist principals). But the progressive side wants to have their cake and eat it too. Sorry, but the term “neo-con” is too defined for this to be the c