We’ve all heard the arguments against going to war: Leftists and libertarians are leery about our getting involved in yet another conflict in the Middle East; Great Britain and other allies oppose our involvement; and we’re sick of war, bored with headlines covering endless conflicts in the desert and tired of hearing reports of Americans being killed. But if military strikes in Syria will somehow halt the spread of terror, then it’s worth dealing with the threat now.
However, the argument for war in Syria is no slam dunk, and we shouldn’t get involved unless a lengthy list of conditions are met. We shouldn’t get involved in Syria — that is:
Not unless Obama makes the case to the American people that military strikes against Syria are vital to our national security interests. Not that they help resolve a humanitarian crisis, not that they uphold international law, not that they allow us to fulfill a wanton promise he made a year ago. That they are somehow necessary for the defense of the country. This requires proof that Syria is planning an attack against the U.S. or developing weapons of mass destruction to use on us or our allies. So far Obama hasn’t made that case.
Not unless President Obama seeks and obtains Congressional approval, as President George W. Bush did before invading Iraq in 2003, as Obama failed to do before striking Libya in 2011 and as the War Powers Resolution requires. Secretary of State John Kerry’s insistence that Obama has the constitutional authority to strike even if Congress turns him down is not reassuring.
Not unless public support for a strike against Syria increases significantly. Twenty-nine percent supporting a potentially years-long, multi-billion dollar effort that could cost dozens of U.S. lives is pathetic. Nearly three-quarters of the American public supported going to war against Iraq in 2003. And tepid support on Syria reveals that Obama has not made the case to the public for why strikes are necessary.
Not unless our action is effective rather than merely symbolic, like President Clinton’s bombing an empty aspirin factory in the Sudan. Obama’s lukewarm “shot across the bow” language is not promising.
Not unless there’s a concrete goal to the action — a point at which we will stop attacking. In Iraq, that point was Saddam Hussein letting the U.S. inspect his military arsenals for weapons of mass destruction. For Syria, that point could be al-Assad leaving office. But Obama has implied that isn’t even his goal.
Not unless we’re prepared to do what it takes to accomplish our military objectives swiftly and conclusively, with all necessary force and no self-defeating hand-wringing over casualties. The Achilles Heel of Bush’s Iraq War strategy was that he didn’t supply our armed forces with enough soldiers to get the job done properly. As a result, the conflict dragged out for years until the 2007 surge. Obama’s suggestion that he won’t come on strong in Syria is not promising.
Not unless we don’t telegraph our intentions to al-Assad, telling him when, where, and how we’re going to attack, and reassuring him beforehand as to the limits of our actions. Though there may still be ways to build the element of surprise into an attack strategy, already Obama has revealed too much of our hand to the Syrian leader.
Not unless all of the above conditions are met should we carry out strikes against Syria. And Obama’s ability to meet them is looking increasingly weak.
