I do not need to describe the carnage of August 21, 2013, when 1,400 Syrian men, women and children perished in an unspeakable chemical attack against the civilians of Ghouta. We’ve seen the images, heard the frantic voices, listened to President Barack Obama tell us that “when dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way.” And yet Congress is doing just that: looking the other way. What makes chemical weapons so uniquely horrible is that —due to the disseminating nature of the chemicals and the guerilla tactics of many Syrian rebels— there is no way that they can be used against a military force like the Syrian resistance; their only purpose is to choke innocent people to gruesome deaths and create a haze of fear to mingle with the toxins and smoke. While it would be a shame to have to intervene militarily in Syria, and the proposal to do so will probably not even come to a vote, members of Congress have a responsibility to the American and Syrian people to express support for Obama’s proposal authorizing military strikes if needed.
The deal between Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and the UN resolution reinforcing it, does not by any stretch of the imagination signify that the chemical weapons crisis is at an end. The United States will not have achieved its objective until all chemical weapons are out of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s control, which would take months to accomplish even with full Syrian cooperation and peacetime conditions. Moreover, the American government has stated its belief that Assad has spent the past few months scattering and hiding his chemical weapons all over Syria, and he could easily keep some of them from the UN if he did not fear a real threat of American action. If he did hold on to some of these weapons, we could not expect any action from the UN because Russia holds veto power over any enforcement of the resolution. In fact, recent statements by Lebanese and defected Syrian government officials have indicated that Assad has already transferred some chemical weapons to Hezbollah rather than surrender them to UN personnel. That is not to mention the biological weapons (anthrax, etc.) that were not included in the deal at all, and which Assad has the potential to use in a similar capacity if he does not think the U.S. is serious about its commitments.
It is also important to understand the nature of Obama’s resolution to Congress. It is not a plan to attack Syria— far from it. His motion to give Obama the option to attack Syria if diplomacy fails. On a practical level, the more that Assad fears an American attack, the less likely he is to push America to the point of attacking. Constitutionally, the president can send forces to Syria without congressional approval, as long as he at no point officially declares war (which he is unlikely to do in any case), so this resolution is less about paving the way for an invasion and more about sending Assad a message and opening the door for more successful negotiations. For this purpose, the proposal does not even have to go to a vote: American politicians simply need to be seen as supporting Obama’s prerogative on Syria.
The most basic strategic argument in favor of the resolution is that America needs to send Assad and his allies a strong message. If other U.S. enemies in the region, like Iran, see Syria crossing Obama’s red line without consequences they may not hesitate to cross the red lines that apply to them as well: nuclear proliferation, attacks on American soil, and any number of things that irrational actors have pledged to do but are afraid to execute as of now.
Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, diplomacy is especially effective when coupled with a credible military threat.
When Obama first announced his proposal, Russia scrambled to start negotiations and come to an agreement. It was the fear of American action that sparked a diplomatic response, and only the fear of American action will force Assad to comply now. We are much more likely to avoid a military confrontation by allowing Obama this key diplomatic tool: the support of his people.
Some have argued that America should not be the world’s policeman, but in this case President Obama drew a red line a long time ago, pledging that the U.S. would protect Syrian civilians against such atrocities. America has the power to eliminate this chemical threat, possibly by striking forces close to Assad but probably (and preferably) by scaring him into relinquishing control of his weapons of mass destruction. To not do so would be to condone the use of poisonous gas against civilian neighborhoods.
Many Americans are afraid to get entangled in another Middle Eastern conflict, with the memory of the Iraq War still fresh on their minds. There are, however, key differences between Iraq and the strikes that Obama is asking to be authorized. The most important is that even if the U.S. intervened, no American soldier would have to set foot in Syria. American submarines in the Mediterranean, and maybe American planes from Cyprus, would punish Assad from afar but would never take any ground. There would be no American occupation, so there is virtually no risk that America would find itself stuck again. In this sense, the operation would be less like Iraq and more like Kosovo in the late ‘90s, when America and NATO successfully resolved a deadly conflict by bombing the Serbian government’s forces, which were then engaged in a devastating military campaign and egregious human rights violations against a rebelling Albanian majority.
What is more, Syria has already sunken into anarchy; the fall of the government would not bring about more division or terror, because the nation is already carved up into many independent territories, each of which is controlled by a group of soldiers ranging from moderates who seek democracy to the al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front to Iranian troops. Turning the slices of land now controlled by Assad over to rebel control could not make the situation any worse, but preventing the use of chemical weapons could and would make the situation a lot better. Finally, the American people should trust President Obama, who brought our troops home from Iraq in the first place. He is a dove, not a hawk, and he will only strike Syria if it is absolutely necessary.
America has a moral responsibility and a strategic need to act now. The chances of diplomatic success would be much higher if Assad saw that Obama has the support of his Congress and people. Members of Congress should openly support Obama’s proposal, even though it has not come to a vote. American citizens, including students at the school, should take action themselves by encouraging our representatives to do so. Too many lives are at risk. We cannot look the other way.
Want to write for Opinions? Contact us at [email protected].
RELATED:
Head to Head: American intervention in Syria
Head to Head: Striking Syria would impede diplomatic efforts
