110833821
To attack Syria or not to attack Syria, that is the question. It appears that Americans agree on only one thing when it comes to the civil war in Syria: The dictator Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons on the civilian population was a heinous act and against international law.
The United Nations was created to enforce such violations. But there is the little matter of needing unanimous consent by the U.N. Security Council to take action, and Russia and China would block any such action, which does not say much for the effectiveness of the U.N. The Arab League calls for action against Syria, but not without support from the U.N. The British parliament has already rejected their prime minister’s call to support a strike. So the problem once again falls into the lap of the United States.
Like you, I have often been wrong in initially supporting the actions of American presidents to militarily intervene with the exception of the first Gulf War waged by the last reasonable Republican president — George H. W. Bush (any of you with a 100 percent record on being right in this area are exempt from this comment). If you and I have gained any wisdom over the last several decades, decades in which America always seems to find a reason to use military force, it is high time that we use it in deciding whether to support the president’s decision.
We already have a wise set of guidelines put out there by Colin Powell when he was head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the run up to the first Gulf War. It is called the Powell Doctrine. Let’s see how that applies to the situation to the president’s proposed strike against Syria.
Is a vital U.S. national security interest threatened?
Although President Barack Obama, through his Secretary of State John Kerry, has tried to make that case, it’s a real stretch. I defer to Powell, who in his appearance on the Sept. 1 episode of “Face the Nation” said that there is an “internal struggle” going on in Syria that is beyond our capability to affect the results. The answer is no.
Is there a clear objective?
The Obama administration says its objective is “limited” to degrading Assad’s capability to use chemical weapons. Kerry seemed to grudgingly accept a congressional resolution that would prohibit the use of American ground forces in Syria. There is a good chance that limited air strikes by the U.S. cannot accomplish the stated objective. No plan seems to exist for what we do in that eventuality. The answer is no.
Have the risks and costs been fully analyzed?
The president has been criticized by some, like the twin advocates of military action anytime anywhere — Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham, for not acting quickly with the full force of the U.S. military. I credit the president for not acting rashly and seeking congressional support, something both he and too many American presidents in the recent past have not done. The answer is a conditional yes.
Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
There is no indication that the president has given much weight to non-military options. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times for one in his column “Arm and Shame,” seems to think we can do something positive without our directly striking Syria. In any event, the answer is no.
Is there a plausible exit strategy?
Kerry posed a hypothetical situation where Syria implodes and U.S. ground troops would be needed. He was quickly forced by the congressional committee to retreat from that position. I didn’t hear him mention any exit strategy at all. The answer is no.
Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
Advocates supporting or rejecting the president believe there will be dire consequences if their position is ignored. The answer is yes. The consequences have been fully considered, but there isn’t a consensus.
is the action supported by the American people?
Early polls indicate Americans do not want to get involved. It should be noted that once a president takes military action, Americans rally to support him.
Do we have genuine broad international support?
The Brits have been our strongest ally, but they have already answered this question for us: No
Based on the Powell Doctrine, the U.S. should not take military action. Understand that the decision is not based on the horrific nature of Assad’s crime, but on whether our military action could make things better. Chances are that there will be more civilian casualties if we take such action.
The advantage of being a super power is we do not have to worry about what the rest of the world thinks. We can survive a hit on our credibility.
If our enemies think we are afraid to act when our own interests are at stake, let them refer to al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden.
Contact the South Philly Review at editor@southphillyreview.com.
110833821
110833831
