Does reputation matter in world politics? If an American president draws a “redline” but fails to enforce it with military power when an adversary crosses it, will this embolden other adversaries? The prevailing wisdom among policymakers and pundits is that credibility counts. No such consensus exists, however, among political scientists, many of whom argue that Washington’s credibility in the eyes of an adversary will be overwhelmingly shaped by the adversary’s reading of current U.S. interests and capabilities, and not by past actions. Harvey and Mitton join this debate with a detailed study of the Obama administration’s response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons in 2013. After Syria crossed U.S. President Barack Obama’s publicly stated redline by using such weapons against civilians and rebels, Russia brokered an agreement in which Syria gave up its chemical stockpiles but avoided U.S. military action. Harvey and Mitton argue that Washington’s “reputation for resolve”—earned by the use of U.S. military force in similar circumstances in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq—influenced Russian and Syrian calculations. The authors do not settle the debate about whether Obama harmed that reputation by declining to use military force to punish Syria. But they drive home the fact that credibility ultimately depends on the imperfect perceptions of leaders and their real-time calculations of risks and probabilities.
In This Review
In This Review
Most Read Articles
When Stalin Faced Hitler
Who Fooled Whom?
Trump’s Incendiary Rhetoric Is Only Accelerating Immigration
The Crisis at the Border Is of Washington’s Own Making
Greece’s New Groove
Why Athens Is No Longer Europe’s Black Sheep
How Iran Sees Its Standoff With the United States
And What Trump Should Do to Solve the Problem He Created
How America Lost Faith in Expertise
And Why That's a Giant Problem