As President Obama's second term draws to a close, it's time to look back upon one of the most contentious aspects of his foreign policy: Dealing with Syria. Now Obama has made a lot of promise and statements about the Middle Eastern country since 2012, some of which he's kept and some he's broken. But, the most important questions to ask are, "Has Obama successfully pursued American interests in Syria?" and "Is Syria better or worse off because of Obama's foreign policy?" Here's a brief overview of answers to those questions.

Roughly four years ago, Obama began his second term by warning Syrian president Bashar al-Assad of the "red line" that must not be crossed, that is, the use of chemical weapons by Assad's regime. A year later, Assad ignored Obama's warning when Syrian forces unleashed rockets containing the deadly nerve gas Sarin on the opposition-controlled suburb of Ghouta. Despite international outrage, Obama refused to bomb Syria. Despite the passing of a 'resolution' by Congress, no force was used by the U.S. In fact, it took the combined threats of several countries, including Great Britain and France, to pressure the Syrian government into destroying its chemical weapon stockpiles in exchange for not being attacked. Although it may seem like Obama made a foolish bluff that was called out, keep in mind that it still isn't clear whether the Syrian government actually launched the chemical attack, or if it was a false-flag operation by rebel forces to draw international sympathy. However, the fact that it took several threats for Assad to back down and destroy his chemical weapons makes Obama seem somewhat weaker in front of world leaders, which draws into question the benefit of a peaceful resolution.

However, the other side of Obama's policy in Syria, that is, seeking to assist the rebels against Assad while preventing Islamic jihadist groups from gaining power in the region, doesn't seem to have gone as well. Even though Obama managed to get funding approved to arm and train rebel groups, this hasn't had as much of an effect in practice, with the rebels still being outnumbered and outgunned by Assad's forces. Furthermore, the rise of ISIS in the east has proven difficult to stop even with coordinated airstrikes and bombing campaigns, which compromises Obama's goal of preventing Islamists from gaining power. Finally, despite Obama warning against Russian intervention, Russia has launched several airstrikes against U.S-backed rebels, which not only hurts Obama's intentions of toppling Assad but also helps ISIS gain more power in eastern Syria. Overall then, despite Obama's efforts to help the rebels in the conflict, external difficulties such as Russia and ISIS have proven difficult to control.

In terms of promoting American national interests, it seems Obama has tried to navigate carefully, rather than brazenly. He's opted to negotiate rather than attack and support rather than intervene directly. While this might make him seem weaker compared to the policies of more hawkish presidents, namely his predecessor George Bush, it also shows a higher level of tactical thinking. Thanks to not being so hawkish, Obama has avoided international criticism, and more importantly, avoided spending precious American resources getting bogged down in a conflict. The only downside to his policy is that his objectives have been more difficult to achieve without force, especially when dealing with Assad and ISIS.

From a humanitarian perspective, it is unequivocally clear that Syria is far worse off today than it was before the war, the refugee situation being just one of the country's many crises. What isn't as clear, however, is just how much Obama's actions have helped or hurt the conditions the country is facing. While Obama's avoidance of force has prevented much civilian collateral damage, his inability to stop ISIS and prevent Russian bombing has led to just as much damage being caused in turn. Thus, it seems that as the country continues to wade in violence and chaos, the suffering of the Syrian people will only continue.

Ultimately, then, Obama's track record in Syria presents a mixed bag. Although he's managed to avoid using military force to achieve his goal of aiding the rebels, that same avoidance has proved a double-edged sword, preventing him from effectively dealing with Assad, either. Perhaps only time will tell if Obama's decisions in Syria will be for the better or the worse.