CASH: War in Syria and President Obama’s Red Line

by Richard Cash candidate for US Senate

The civil war in Syria is a tragedy, filled with horrific atrocities on both sides of the fighting. The use of chemical weapons is the latest outrage, and some argue that it compels a military response from Western nations, led by the United States. President Obama, who stated in August, 2012, that the use of chemical weapons would cross a red line and change his calculations regarding the civil war, appears ready to wage war against the government of Bashar al-Assad. Although the moral argument is weighty, there are several reasons why the President’s course of action is wrong.

First, President Obama has not sought congressional approval for military action against Syria. Just as with Libya in 2011, the President seeks international approval, while ignoring the will of the American people as expressed through their elected representatives. This is imperialistic in nature and ignores the separation of powers and the nature of representative government. There is no emergency here, no attack on American forces that justifies an urgent, unilateral decision by the executive branch, while bypassing Congress. Perhaps the reason why President Obama has not gone to Congress to make his case to the nation is because of the difficulty of making a compelling argument that waging war in Syria is in our vital national interest. If the use of chemical weapons is the basis for initiating war, then there must first be conclusive proof that al-Assad’s government did in fact order such a use. Even if such proof is offered, the Congress must still be persuaded that it is the will of the American people, not just the President, to initiate a war over this use of chemical weapons.

Second, President Obama has stated that military action against Syria will not be for the purpose of regime change. If the purpose is not regime change, then it is simply punitive. While this “spanking” of al-Assad might seem to be a satisfying way of balancing the moral scales, it is lacking in strategic coherence. If the President’s position is to be believed, we are going to launch missiles into Syria for a few days and then cease further actions. While this might fulfill the requirement of taking action over the President’s red line statement, it will appear to all as military symbolism. In addition, President Obama lacks credibility with the American people concerning his stated purpose because of the “mission creep” that occurred in Libya. In 2011, Obama initiated war in Libya solely for humanitarian purposes, to prevent a possible slaughter of civilians. The American people were assured at the outset that regime change was not the mission, but in fact that did become the mission. President Obama wants to start another limited war, but how can he expect the American people to believe that it will not turn into a longer effort aimed at regime change, just like in Libya?

Third, if regime change is not the goal, then why start a war? Make no mistake, when the United States starts shooting missiles into Syria, we have started a war with Syria, the same way that we would feel if someone shot even one missile at us. If we are not intending to overthrow al-Assad and oversee the rebuilding of Syria, then why get involved? There is a mixture of groups seeking to overthrow al-Assad, including Islamic radicals affiliated with Al Qaeda. If we are not prepared to take responsibility for what happens after the overthrow, then in fact we might unintentionally be assisting Islamic extremists. Some are arguing, however, that we must take action to prevent the United States from being perceived as a “paper tiger”, because President Obama’s red line statement puts the military credibility of the nation on the line. But does anyone really believe that the most powerful military on earth, which deposed the Taliban and destroyed Saddam Hussein’s military, is a paper tiger? Ironically, the President’s announcement that this will be a brief, limited engagement already reinforces his image as a weak leader, just as when he announced in advance a withdrawal date from Afghanistan.

President Obama is preparing to inject America into a civil war in which we do not have a vital national interest, without congressional approval, and absent any coherent military strategy. It appears to be a face-saving gesture to restore the President’s credibility at the expense of the Constitution and the nation. It is a bad idea and our elected representatives should say so loud and clear.