President Obama has asked Congress to authorize him to take military action against the Syrian government because it has allegedly used chemical weapons. Secretary Kerry citing photographs and videos of the corpses of women and children who he claims were the victims of the Assad regime’s chemical attack has said we cannot allow the slaughter to continue.
Do we want our military to become the Saudis’ hit men?
Initially he called for strong military action, but he has lowered the rhetoric and now says that the United States is not going to war with Syria. Instead the Obama administration intends to degrade the Syrian government’s ability to use chemical weapons and deter Assad from their future use by means of “an unbelievably small strike.” He adds that the strike won’t cost us anything since the Saudi’s have offered to pay for it. When one nation fires missiles into another or drops bombs on the territory of another nation isn’t that an act of war? When the attack is paid for by a third party isn’t the aggressor acting as a mercenary? Do we want our military to become the Saudis’ hit men?
The members of Congress need to ask themselves if the outcome of the Syrian civil war would affect the national security interests of the United States. In other words, do we care who wins? If we do, then what is the outcome that is in our interests? The Assad government provides support to Hezbollah, but the Islamist rebels are allied with al-Qaeda. Would the best option for the U.S. be to let the Syrian government and rebel forces continue to fight it out since the longer the war goes on the weaker each side becomes?
If we degrade Assad’s military capabilities, we are helping the rebels. Kerry says that the main rebel opposition, the Free Syrian Army, under General Idriss is secular and that the number of Islamist fighters is relatively small. Vladimir Putin says Kerry is lying, and the reports from the people on the ground tend to confirm Putin’s view that the majority of the rebel fighters are Islamists, and that if Assad is defeated they will easily rout General Idriss’ forces and take control of Syria. Is that the outcome we want?
Has Benghazi taught us nothing about the dangers of ousting secular dictators in the Middle East?
Even if the Free Syrian Army were victorious, what assurance do we have that the result would be a secular, democratic Syria, one in which human rights, especially the rights of women and non-Muslims, would be protected? Do we have a proven track record of getting regime change right? Iran now has more influence in Iraq than the U.S. does, and more people have been killed there this year than at any time since 2008. In Afghanistan, U.S. military commanders are warning that if we withdraw all combat forces at the end of 2014, the Taliban will retake control of the country. Both Iraq and Afghanistan have corrupt authoritarian governments. We supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt because we thought they were going to adhere to democratic principles. But obviously no one in the Obama administration had read their charter which states that democracy can not permit that which Islam prohibits or forbid that which Islam permits. What about Libya? Has Benghazi taught us nothing about the dangers of ousting secular dictators in the Middle East?
Assad has the support of Christians, Alawites, Alevi, Sufi and Shia
Assad has the support of Christians, Alawites, Alevi, Sufi and Shia. What happens to them if Syria becomes a Sunni Saudi like Wahabi theocracy under the control of Salafists? How have Christians fared in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia since the start of the so-called Arab Spring? Have we thought through what effect a military strike on Syria will have on Hezbollah, Hamas, the Kurds, Israel, Lebanon and Iran? Obama has expressed the opinion that by striking Syria the U.S. will be showing Iran that it had better not develop nuclear weapons. But would “an unbelievably small strike” really deter them, or would it just make us look impotent? What if the strike is ineffective? Is our commitment to prevent Assad from ever again using chemical weapons open-ended? Even if the strike is effective, might that not spur the Iranians to accelerate their nuclear weapons program as a deterrent against U.S. interference in their internal affairs? If we get involved in the Syrian war, do we have an exit strategy?
Is the issue simply the use of chemical weapons? If so, how certain are we that Assad used them? The Obama administration claims that their intelligence points to Assad, but is there any evidence to support that assertion? Let’s remember what we thought about Sadam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. Putin says the rebels were responsible for the chemical weapons attack. Kerry has responded by saying that the rebels lacked chemical weapons capabilities. But members of the Aum Shinrikyo terrorist organization had no trouble manufacturing sarin gas, liquefying it and releasing it in the Tokyo subway. We know the Islamists have fought with the Free Syrian Army. Could they have produced and used the gas on the population in a Free Syrian army controlled area as a way of drawing us into the conflict?
Henry Kissinger, who has warned against the use of military force in Syria, believes that because President Obama has called for military action, the credibility of the United States requires that we attack Syria. The U.N. inspection team hasn’t filed their report. What if we are wrong and chemical weapons weren’t used, or what if they were used but used by the Islamists? Is the President’s credibility so valuable a commodity that it justifies reining death and destruction on the people of Syria? Does the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of another nation still have meaning, or are we bullies who can attack whoever we want whenever we want simply because we are so big and powerful that no one dare oppose us?
There is no decision more serious or consequential than the decision to take our nation to war. No matter how the President and the Secretary of State parse the words they are asking the Congress to declare war on Syria. What the members of Congress need to do is ask themselves have enough of the relevant questions been answered, and do those answers justify doing the President’s bidding.
