There are two questions to ask when assessing whether the U.S. should intervene in Syria: Is there a legitimate national security interest at risk here? And if so, is U.S. intervention in Syria the best approach to protect our interests?
The answer to the first question is a “maybe.” International conventions such as the Geneva Protocol from 1925 (signed by Syria 1968) prohibit the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The use of Weapons of Mass Destruction (especially by a government against its own population) is reprehensible and threatens not only regional stability, but the well-being of people around the globe.
However, sweeping statements by our own politicians such as drawing “red lines” for foreign policy doctrine might threaten national security even more than the current turmoil in the Middle East. Rather than empower the U.S. to respond to difficult situations, such statements narrow tactical and military options, and have caused credibility problems in the past such as when Reagan stated the U.S. would not withdraw from Lebanon.
President Obama’s “red line” claim has put him in a difficult position: If Congress does not follow his recommendation and deliver upon his previous threats, Obama’s credibility is damaged. As tough of a loss as that may be for the President, it would be a victory for the U.S. One of the great differences between the U.S. and those countries threatening our security is that no single person can decide the fate of the entire nation. Future U.S. Presidents should come to finally understand that ex-ante military doctrines are not theirs to set, and they should consult Congress before declaring how the country will react to particular actions.
The move of President Obama to involve Congress in deciding whether to intervene in Syria or not was the right thing to do. Presenting this move as a surprise and not involving Congress from the very beginning is the actual scandal and exemplary of the lack of respect for our tripartite system of checks and balances cultivated by this administration.
As for the question of whether U.S. intervention is the best approach to stabilize the situation in the Middle East, the answer is a very likely “no.” Intervening will lead to a litany of unintended consequences, and likely fail to accomplish its stated purpose of sending a statement to Assad and other regimes in the region and around the world that Weapons of Mass Destruction will not be tolerated. At this point, intervention would serve the political interests of the President more than the security interests of the U.S.
It is not about isolationism but about being aware of the unintended consequences of interventionism. Many problems in the Middle East can be at least be partially seen as unintended consequences of former interventions, military aid, or intelligence campaigns. An entire decade of war has not stabilized the region at all but rather brought more instability, political uncertainty, and terror to the Middle East and Northern Africa.
Claims by some that less military intervention abroad means being disconnected to other cultures or indifferent to atrocities overseas are just not correct. The notion of not creating bigger fires in the Middle East has nothing to do with isolationism practiced in the early 20th, century but with a 21st century understanding of the interconnectedness of the world that suggests greater military intervention and greater violence might not lead to peace and stability.
Hawkish Republicans and bellicose Democrats (following the administration) are trying to continue the neoconservative heritage of the past ten years and thus lead us to a second decade of war.
The pro-interventionist alliance of Democrats and Republicans is another illustration how the mainstream parts of both parties try to push for more policing around the world and neglect the people’s opinion on these issues. It is now up to the American public, dovish Democrats, and non-interventionist Republicans to prevent another war. Real liberal Democrats are hopefully starting to understand that the Obama administration practices a style of foreign policy which is diametrically opposed to their fundamental ideas.
It’s about time to finally overcome the neoconservative direction of U.S. foreign policy. Congress and the President have to understand that stability in the Middle East can’t be brought by additional U.S.-led intervention.