By: Korey Boehm
Last Friday, Secretary of State John Kerry confirmed that U.S. intelligence officials have evidence that the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack against innocent Syrian citizens. The attack, which allegedly killed 1,429 civilians and an incomprehensible 426 children, is the latest brutality in the civil war that has engrossed the nation for over two years and taken the lives of over 100,000 people.
As has become the norm throughout history, many in the international community have been looking to the United States for possible intervention. While remaining neutral to this point, President Barack Obama has declared on at least five separate occasions that the use of chemical weapons against the rebel forces would serve as a “red line in the sand,” after which the United States would be compelled to intervene. Therefore, with Kerry’s confirmation came an assumption that an attack, at least of a limited scope, was imminent. With all eyes on Washington last weekend, however, President Obama essentially called a timeout. While he personally believes the U.S. should take military action against the Syrian government in retaliation for its use of chemical weapons with the aim of removing the Assad administration from power, he will only pursue such action with congressional approval.
One might assume that it is standard operating procedure for the President to defer to Congress to seek permission to use military force. However, contrary to popular belief, he only needs their consent to declare war, leaving “limited military interventions” completely to the whims of the Commander-in-Chief. In fact, Obama has already invoked this power during his presidency, sending troops to aid the rebel forces in the Libyan civil war during a U.N.-approved mission to protect civilians in March 2011.
Why then would a President who has already demonstrated his capability, and more importantly his willingness, to unilaterally deploy military force be so hesitant to do so under the very circumstances he described as being justification for intervention? Unfortunately the answer is that the situation has become increasingly more complicated since the day Obama issued his regrettable “line in the sand” ultimatum.
A major hurdle facing Obama is the lack of support that he has thus far received from allies of the United States, including those of the UN Security Council. Of the five permanent members of the Security Council, only France has agreed to support the United States in any military intervention, with British Parliament voting down the proposal despite Prime Minister David Cameron’s public stance of support for military involvement. Without their support, any strike would not only be more difficult, but also would pose the risk of distancing those allies in future affairs.
Yet, it is not just support abroad that is of concern to President Obama. In 2008, with the largely unsuccessful foreign policy of predecessor George W. Bush fresh on the minds of Americans, Obama assured the American people during his campaign that he would work to lessen U.S. military involvement in the Middle East. At one point during a July 2008 campaign speech about Middle Eastern involvement, he even told a crowd in Berlin “no nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone.” By pursuing military intervention in a Middle Eastern country, and doing so alone, Obama will have many questions to answer from the voters who put him in office.
The next problem Obama faces is determining what exactly a military strike against Syria would include. Many Syrian military targets are not isolated from urban areas, so any attack would likely include large amounts of civilian casualties, essentially harming the same victims of Assad’s brutality. In addition, without a full deployment of troops on the ground, which Obama has pledged to avoid, the United States is left with less-than-optimal options for attack. With naval ships within reach, many analysts seem to think that cruise missiles would provide the type of “limited strike” Obama has referenced. However, those same analysts seem to doubt the utility of such an assault, noting that although they are able to inflict damage, they are unlikely to prevent any chemical weapons capability.
Apart from cruise missiles, other options include drone strikes against Syrian forces, instituting a no-fly zone, or even simply arming the rebel forces. The problem with each of these alternatives is that even if they are somehow able to thwart the Assad regime from using chemical weapons again, they are unlikely to change the balance of power in Syria’s civil war or accomplish Obama’s affirmed goal of regime change. Because Assad maintains close relations with Russia and is backed militarily by Iran, overthrowing this dangerous administration will require much more than the simple cruise missile strike currently being considered.
There are also many unintended but dangerous potential consequences that could come in the aftermath of U.S. military involvement in Syria. Because of Assad’s ties with Russia, President Vladimir Putin could very well decide to renege on the U.S. sanctions on Iran. In fact, it would be of great benefit to Moscow, who has never seen eye-to-eye with its western peers, to allow the United States to involve itself in yet another Middle Eastern crisis, again with little to no support abroad. The incumbent Syrian regime is also backed militarily by Iran, meaning that any involvement would likely preclude future conflicts with the bordering Arab nation, a country that is anything but fond of the United States.
Unfortunately for the top American decision-makers, for every argument against intervening, there exists an equal amount of justifications. After World War I, it was determined that the use of chemical weapons of any sort, against any enemy, would simply not be tolerated. This is an attack not only against innocent civilians, but against Assad’s own people. A cruelty of this magnitude simply cannot be tolerated by a civilized world.
As the New York Times points out, other dictatorships across the globe are watching intently. If actions such as these go unpunished, how long will it be until the world sees similar violence from countries such as Iran or North Korea? Americans believe that American use of force should be grounded in a “vital U.S. interest rooted in the defense and safety of our citizens.” In this case, however, could allowing such atrocities to go unpunished compromises future U.S. defense interests?
World history has shown what can happen when the few countries that have the power to stop dictators sit behind their own borders and merely hope for the best. In the 1930s, after witnessing the devastating effects of World War I, America and its allies lost their determination to enforce global order and, in effect, allowed dictators Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini to come to power. The world cannot afford to see history repeat itself in this regard.
President Obama also stands to lose a great deal of credibility in the international arena if he is unable to garner enough support from Congress to approve a strike. When Obama made his “line in the sand” declaration, he did not say, “if chemical weapons are used I will consult with Congress.” With Assad essentially calling his bluff, if the United States does not end up conducting a military operation in Syria, Obama’s words will forever be taken with a grain of salt amongst international leaders.
Had Obama not campaigned under the promises of staying out of foreign conflicts or had he not made his now-infamous “line in the sand” remarks, perhaps the situation would not seem so bleak. Nevertheless, as it becomes increasingly clear that the situation in Syria must be resolved, what has yet to become clear is what role the United States should take in doing so. It’s your move Uncle Sam, and as usual, the world is watching.
