Kori Schake takes offense at Obama’s dismissal of his hawkish foreign policy critics:

One of the reasons the president is such a polarizing force in American politics is that he caricatures the views of his critics, as though there is no legitimate basis for difference on the demanding issues of the day. So there can be no opposition to his policy on Syria without being labeled someone who would fight another war in the Middle East that the American people do not want, and there can be no policy options they have not already initiated [bold mine-DL].

It’s true that Obama sometimes caricatures his opponents, but it’s not clear that he has done so in this case. It is possible to be opposed to the administration’s Syria policy without favoring a more aggressive one, but these obviously aren’t the opponents that Obama had in mind. He was responding to the hawkish critics that have been very vocal in their displeasure that he did not order the bombing of Syria last year, and who have also objected to his response to the Ukraine crisis for not being as hard-line as they would prefer. Warmongers dislike it when they are identified as such, and especially on Syria it is not credible for hawks to complain that they are being misrepresented. Most Syria hawks have been clamoring for U.S. military action against Assad for years, and the main reason that some of them might have been against the proposed strikes last year is that they were going to be too “limited.” Obama very nearly gave them what they wanted last summer, and ever since the “limited” strikes were called off they have been fuming about the “failure” to wage an unnecessary war. Considering his administration’s abortive push for intervention last year, Obama also can’t credibly present himself as an advocate of restraint, but that doesn’t refute any of the charges he made against more aggressive Syria hawks. Hawkish critics have consistently sought to portray themselves as “tougher” and more aggressive than Obama, but then cry foul when he points out that they support more aggressive (and much more unpopular) policies. It’s a very tired act.

Demanding that the U.S. provide weapons to the Ukrainian government isn’t the same as calling for military action, but it is the most hawkish option that is realistically available. Naturally, it is the one that some hawks have endorsed. The administration has been repeatedly attacked in recent weeks for not sending arms and for ruling out the use of force. Since no one–not even the usual suspects–believes that the U.S. should go to war over Ukraine, ruling out the use of force costs the U.S. nothing and affirms what everyone already knows. Arming Ukrainian forces would be a futile gesture, but because it is the most aggressive option short of direct involvement in the conflict it is the one that mindless interventionists prefer.

Obama’s Syria and Ukraine policies are seriously flawed, but the flaws are just the opposite of what the loudest hawkish detractors claim. He has made too many rhetorical commitments in foreign crises and conflicts that he isn’t and shouldn’t be willing to back up. Instead of refraining from making any more of these commitments, he and other administration officials keep making declarations that create unrealistic expectations of U.S. support. Instead of making a straightforward argument that rejects the hawkish assumptions of his most hostile critics, he frequently gives in to the impulse to “do something” despite the fact that he seems well aware of how ineffective U.S. actions will be. That leaves him pursuing policies that fewer and fewer Americans have confidence in, partly because many Americans guess that Obama doesn’t have much confidence in them, either. Again and again, he ends up pursuing the goals that hawks want, which most Americans don’t support, while refusing to employ the means that hawks prefer. So it’s no wonder that approval of Obama’s foreign policy is at its lowest level in five years.