America: Is the world’s policeman on furlough?

*First appeared in the September 5, 2013, edition of the Laurel Chronicle.

Lately, it seems that everyone has become a foreign policy expert. We all have strong opinions on Syria; we pretend to understand the geographic, religious, governmental, ethnic, and other complexities of Middle Eastern turmoil; we attempt to possess a strong handle on military strategy.

I'm just as guilty as the pretenders, as I have chosen to write a column on this very subject. However, rather than take a side, I'd like to look at the larger question that has plagued more than one President: What is America's role in the world?

Does the United States - the world's remaining "superpower" - have a responsibility to serve as the world's policeman? Or, should we temper our military efforts, engaging only in those conflicts which have a direct relationship to our economic, military, or other national interests?

President Obama is on a mission to answer this question - well, sort of. He believes that chemical weapons (sarin, specifically) were used by the Assad-led regime against the Syrian rebels. He has previously said chemical warfare was his "red line" that, once crossed, would guarantee American involvement in the Middle Eastern conflict. Now our Commander-In-Chief says that Congress must give him approval to act before he will direct any military action in Syria.

To be honest, the President hasn’t been especially decisive on the issue. His actions don’t reflect his words. In a joint press conference with the Swedish Prime Minister, the President reiterated his belief that America must act, saying that failure to respond to the use of chemical weapons puts “America and Congress’s credibility on the line.” President Obama said our sincerity was at risk particularly because America gives "lip service" to the notion that international norms - such as the ban of chemical warfare - are important.

Swedish Prime Minister Reinfeldt agreed that "in the face of such barbarism, the international community cannot be silent" and that despite the hesitance of other countries, the United States has a larger responsibility to the world.

So, Americans are perceived to have a larger responsibility than others to act, according to both our President and the Swedish Prime Minister. But is this perception reality?

The President says we must act; that we have a great responsibility to act...yet he has stalled military action by seeking congressional approval – an unusual precedent set by the chief executive. For an executive to cede power back to Congress in this manner gives the appearance of weakness.

It reminds me of former President Ronald Reagan's foreign policy mantra, "peace through strength." The popular President who was successful in ending the Cold War said this about peacekeeping: "We know that peace is the condition under which mankind was meant to flourish. Yet peace does not exist of its own will. It depends on us, on our courage to build it and guard it and pass it on to future generations."

Instead of embracing peace through strength, President Obama has been indecisive, sending mixed messages to our friends and our enemies both at home and abroad.

Further, President Obama drew the Biblical line in the sand at the use of chemical warfare yet, to date, no action has been taken. This has not only portrayed our leader as wavering and our nation as militarily tepid, but has also shown the world that its default global policeman is on furlough under the current administration.

Even our citizens are weary of our inherited role as peacekeeper, with nearly 59 percent opposing Syrian involvement according to a recent Washington Post-ABC poll.

Does this indicate a change in attitudes, or is it simply a result of a war-fatigued nation? Will it be permanent, or will America regain its status as international law enforcer in future years?

Only time will tell how the current Syrian crisis plays out and how the United States will deal with this and future conflicts. While our nation may be moving away from its role as the world's policeman, I think it's important for our citizens and our leaders to remember America's unique role in global conflicts.

We are the beacon of hope; the protectorate of what is just and fair; we fight the good fight...or at least that is our global perception. But void of strength and absent a unified vision, we will be unable to maintain the respect, fear, and strategic allegiances that accompany the global policeman.

Remember former President Teddy Roosevelt's big stick policy - that is, "speak softly and carry a big stick." America can only afford to speak softly if we've got the big stick to defend ourselves – and are willing to use it. Right now, it’s anyone’s guess as to whether this President is willing to take that action.