Syria: In Need of Vision Nathen M. Baker Thesis submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts In Political Science Paul C. Avey Priya Dixit Timothy W. Luke 26 April 2019 Blacksburg, VA Keywords: Syria; Presidential Leadership; Presidential Vision; Vision in Foreign Policy; American Foreign Policy Copyright © 2019, Nathen M. Baker Syria: In Need of Vision Nathen M. Baker ABSTRACT Possessing a vision to correct problems is an area of interest for leadership and political studies, as presumably vision provides the goal to orient upon and overcome problems, and should apply at all levels of leadership. The worsening situation in Syria since the end of the Cold War begs the questions of whether any recent U.S. President tried to address the issues in the relationship with Syria, and what was the vision the President sought to achieve. This study reviews Presidential rhetoric from President’s News Conferences, major speeches and Executive Orders for a vision to ascertain the intended direction for U.S. policy for Syria. Also, the study reviews the leadership styles of the five Presidents for consistency and effectiveness in conveying a foreign policy message. Broadly, the study concludes that the Presidents need more than a strategy to engage other nation to fix problems. They need an achievable outcome to aim the U.S. government towards and to effectively broadcast their vision to a broad audience. It takes an appreciation for history, realistic expectations and an eye for the future to form a vision for a coherent way forward. Unfortunately, the Presidents in this study did not give the appropriate time or resources to correct the pervasive problems in Syria. Their overall policies ranged from incoherent to stagnant, therefore hampering the U.S. ability to guide progress fixing the situation. Syria: In Need of Vision Nathen M. Baker GENERAL AUDIENCE ABSTRACT The pervasive problems within Syria are some of the more important U.S. foreign policy issues that require guidance and direction to overcome. The worsening situation in Syria since the end of the Cold War begs the questions of whether any recent U.S. President tried to address the issues in the relationship with Syria. Broadly, the study concludes that it takes more than a strategy to engage another nation and fix problems. It takes an appreciation for history, realistic expectations and an eye for the future to form a vision for a coherent way forward. Additionally, Presidents require the ability to effectively communicate their vision to a broad audience. Unfortunately, it appears the Presidents in this study did not give the appropriate time or resources to correct the problems, and therefore hampered the U.S. President’s ability to guide progress to fix the situation. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Huge thanks to my thesis panel for their gems of wisdom and patience while I prolonged the completion of this thesis. Their understanding and guidance gave me valuable suggestions to focus and understand more. None of this was possible without the love and support from my wife and children. They endured through the entire project. I owe them an immeasurable debt of gratitude and appreciation for their perseverance. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................1 2. History and Position of Affairs in Syria ..........................................................................6 2.1. Recent U.S. Policy Towards Syria ..........................................................................21 3. U.S. Presidential Role in Foreign Policy .......................................................................26 6.1. Presidential Role in National Interest .....................................................................30 4. Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................42 5. Methods and Evidence ...................................................................................................55 6. Research and Analysis ...................................................................................................62 6.1. President George H. W. Bush .................................................................................63 6.2. President William J. Clinton ...................................................................................69 6.3. President George W. Bush ......................................................................................84 6.4. President Barack H. Obama ....................................................................................98 6.5. President Donald J. Trump ...................................................................................131 7. Conclusions ..................................................................................................................143 7.1. Implications...........................................................................................................154 8. Bibliography ................................................................................................................164 v Chapter 1 – INTRODUCTION As the head of the Executive Branch and with the broad authorities granted to the office, the President of the United States remains largely responsible for directing action and guiding policy in the foreign arena. As a result, he remains the subject of much leadership analysis and constant scrutiny over what actions he intends to take to resolve foreign policy matters. Unfortunately, "the question of the extent to which leaders matter in international politics is as familiar as it is impossible to fully answer" (Jervis 2013, 154). It remains difficult to conclude that any single decision-maker, even the President of the United States, can remain relevant and influence the world in a grand manner, especially a world so tightly connected and influenced by rapidly evolving events. There is simply too much nuance and not enough time for one person to fully comprehend every situation. The question about Presidential relevancy remains especially prominent as it pertains to the U.S. policies directed at Syria since the end of the Cold War. Though five very different men have held the office as President since the end of the Cold War, very few of their collective policies directed toward Syria progressed toward a resolution of the long-standing issues between the United States and Syria. The stagnation in progress begs the question of whether the U.S. has ever possessed a good vision to improve the relationship between the U.S. and Syria. As with any good research, "the best way to examine the problems of international political theory is to pose a central question and identify the answers that can be given to it" (Waltz 2001, 12). The primary question this research attempts to answer involves why the President hasn’t been able to direct necessary change toward 1 fixing numerous issues in Syria. In order to answer that question, the research tries to determine what the President wanted to achieve as an outcome with respect to Syria. Since effective leaders portray their intended outcomes through vision, this research focuses on discovering the strategic vision the President outlined for dealing with Syria. Did any of the five Presidents outline a vision or ultimate goal to reach with Syria that could address the negative trend? Subsequently, this research provides insight and understanding on the degree that presidential leadership, through expression of strategic vision, has a role in outlining and enforcing American foreign policy. As it turns out, this research does not conclude that having vision will make the President successful, but it does trend toward the conclusion that without a vision for the future, the President and the foreign policy apparatus will flounder and struggle with consistency. The lack of Presidential vision in Syria hasn’t necessarily created poor policies; however, the prolonged stagnation in policy has created an environment where a coherent policy in Syria may not be sufficient. Correcting the pervasive problems has become more difficult because it’s difficult to understand the objective that the Presidents sought. Despite their often-differing perspectives, one thing has remained constant through all five Presidents; none have conveyed a vision for what they wanted to accomplish as it pertains to resolving differences with Syria. The analysis shows, more often than not, that the recent Presidents are too heavily mired in the daily minutia of the issues within Syria to convey their thoughts and vision on where the U.S. should proceed and how their relationship should develop. Outlining a future for these items would enhance the Syrian nation and place them on a more equal footing with the United States and the international community. More importantly, it would offer the opportunity for 2 the Syrian population to overcome the ravages of war and ceaseless violence. This research presents an incredible opportunity to view vision as a leadership tool that may offer a mechanism to break out of stagnancy and pursue higher goals in Syria, such as economic advancements, trade partnerships and greater diplomatic collaboration on the world stage. One of the primary reasons why solving the Syria problem is important is because the world needs less nations that sponsor