Can the US’s Soft Power win out against Russia’s Military 'Might' in Syria?

Can the US’s Soft Power win out against Russia’s Military 'Might' in Syria?

            Currently, Russia is bombing ISIS targets in Syria to destroy ISIS and subsequently protect the oppressive Assad regime in Syria. The airstrikes have been effective against the ISIS militants. However, will this plan be beneficial for Russia in the long run? The Obama administration on the other hand appears to be using soft power to navigate this situation. This is due to a multitude of factors, all of which draw from the US’s past experiences of fighting wars in the region. Obama recognizes that wars in the Middle East are costly and outside intervention is generally not very effective. The US has invested in training opposition rebel groups who’s ideals the US supports, in the hope that these rebels will help create a better Syria down the road. I think this situation is a bit iron because Russia is using hard power to progress its Liberal agenda in Syria, while the US is using minimal amounts of hard power in conjunction with mostly soft power to advance its agenda in the region. However, which country’s response to the issues in Syria are better?

            Putin has, in recent years, been praised for his very blunt and whimsical uses of hard power. I think that Putin’s approach to international relations is not very practical for the 21^st century, but there are many that would disagree with me. I went to a High School with a very large international population, and I am friends with many people from Russia. The majority of them praise Putin for his actions in the around the world because they feel like he is bringing back Russia’s image as a strong military player on a global scale. Russia’s foreign policy is steeped in liberal international relations theory, as Russia is trying to protect their ally, the Assad regime for ISIS and other rebel groups in the region. On the surface, this looks good, while it looks like Russia is purely invested in the fight against ISIS. However, there is more to it, while the other militant groups that are being bombed by Russia want to topple the oppressive Assad regime. However, despite the accusations against the Assad regime, Russia stands by its ally, showing that Russia has a liberal foreign policy.

            The United States on the other hand is using soft power to promote a realist agenda. The US public is currently very skeptical of another war in the Middle East, which has swayed US policy makers to limit operations in the Middle East. This means that it is very unlikely that the US will stand up against Russia’s airstrikes in Syria. However, I do not think that this is sign of US weakness. I think the US is realizing that conflict in the Middle East is not only unnecessary, but also harmful to the US. The US is hated by many of the radicals in the Middle East due to the countries intervention in the region. So leaving is a good move.

            I was reading an article in the New York Times that was about the Syria crisis (interesting article you all should check it out http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/30/opinion/thomas-friedman-syria-obama-and-putin.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share). The author, Thomas Freedman, says that if we leave Russia alone in Syria, and remove ourselves from the region, terrorist will start to shift their attention to Russia, instead of the US. I agree with this prediction, which spells out a very favorable situation for the US.

            Therefore, I think that it is in the US’s best interest to continue to condemn Russian intervention in Syria like president Obama has been doing. This will bolster the US’s soft power, as Russia will continue to be seen rash wanna-be super power that is further embarrassed by the actions of their allies like Assad. This is one of the few cases that I think that soft power buttressed by small amounts of hard power can work in global politics.