In a national address yesterday, President Obama announced that he was suspending military action in Syria in order to let negotiations over a Russia-backed plan run their course. As the world waits to see if military action can be avoided in favor of diplomatic means, Stern students debate the costs/benefits of the proposed missile strike.
Pro
Kimberly Hay, Stern ’14
Images of men and young children, lying on the floor and convulsing uncontrollably as a result of exposure to chemical weapons, flashed on the screen before Congressmen during a recent closed-door meeting with the Obama administration. The administration, which is pushing for Congress to sign off on a limited military strike against Syria, recently released these videos, which testify to the horrors suffered by Syrian victims of Assad’s chemical weapons attack.
Congress may soon be faced with a difficult decision. A recent poll conducted by the WSJ and NBC shows that a majority of Americans are opposed to the idea of a military strike against Syria. The poll found that 58% of Americans oppose military action, and 75% believe that the top priority of Congress should be to deal with issues back at home, rather than concern itself with yet another tumult in the Middle East.
While it is true that the country is in a deeply isolationist mood, Congress should not let this fact inhibit them from authorizing Obama’s request. The price we would pay for not responding to Assad’s horrific human rights violations would, in the long run, outweigh the enticing pull to keep our tax dollars and military far away from the Syrian conflict.
By deploying chemical weapons against its own people, Syria has flagrantly violated a widely respected international norm. If Assad can get away with gassing 1,400 of his own people, what’s to stop him in the future from deploying chemical weapons against an even larger number of people in a desperate attempt to ward off rebel forces? And what sort of message will rogue countries like Iran receive when they realize that the international community will not actually enforce the red lines it draws?
“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality,” quoted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid from Dante this past Monday regarding the upcoming Congressional vote. For better or for worse, the United States has assumed leadership of the international community over the past few decades. As such, we have a responsibility to confront the human calamities occurring within our midst. The alternative, to give in to our isolationist tendencies and turn a blind eye, could create a catalyst for future violations of international norms on an even larger scale, which is certainly not in our long term interest.
Abigail Bachrach, Stern ’15
Congress should and must approve a proposal for a military response towards Syria (that is, if Syrian President Bashar Assad fails to act on his recent agreement to cooperate with the UN). The proposal’s design is intended to punish Assad for his deliberate use of chemical weapons, as proved by substantial evidence provided by the Obama administration. Assad’s recent attack on his own people in Damascus killed hundreds and affected thousands more. Congressional authorization will allow American military action that will punish Assad and deter such crimes in the future.
United States military action will show Assad our condemnation of his crimes. A primary concern is the potential for United States involvement in the war in Syria. A fear of mission creep is a valid one. Prior wars, specifically Iraq or Afghanistan, come to mind. Mr. Obama has said that his call for military action will be limited and is solely aimed to hold Assad accountable and deter further chemical weapon use. Congress can examine the resolution to avoid possible elevation into war and ensure that the proposal achieves such aims only.
Some view the use of chemical weapons as no different than conventional warfare. The so-called “red line” that Mr. Obama says Syria has crossed means chemical weapon use is different. Chemical warfare has been singled out for decades. By participating the Geneva Convention and more recent Chemical Weapons Convention, the international community has agreed.
Without an American response, Assad and the rest of the world will see that there is no cost to the use of chemical weapons. They will use them again, with the knowledge that the United States may condemn them with words, but there will be no consequence in action.
The vast lack of support and skepticism displayed by the American public and much of Congress provide further concerns for military action. The Obama administration thus should do all in their power to sway this opinion. The Assad regime must be held accountable for their crimes, and the United States should do all in its power to convince the public as such.
In the past, America has failed to act when faced with proof of other crimes against humanity. Congress should not turn their heads away, and approve the proposal for military action.
Con
Yaelle Lasson, Stern ’14
If only a chemical weapon arsenal could be as easily identifiable as the new iPhone fingerprint detection system announced this morning for the new iPhone 5S and 5C.
President Obama plans on addressing the nation in a matter of hours to recapitulate the rapid changes of the Syria crisis over the past few days reinstate his position, while presenting the new Russian diplomatic proposal. The administration has been trying to make the case to Congress and both the American and international public that a military attack on Syria is the only option as retaliation to the use of chemical weapons against rebels and civilians on August 21. Furthermore, the President believes an attack is necessary in order to deter and punish Iran and to give the American administration and the accords of the Geneva conventions the credibility it needs to prevent a major international humanitarian issue.
But as of this afternoon, a proposal by Russia could release the tension between the Obama administration and Congress and give the United States the ability to hold back on any military moves it had thought about making. The proposal gives Syria the option to reveal their chemical arsenal and comply with international inspectors by a consented date.
Nevertheless, regardless of public opinion polls by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal that imply a 58 percent disapproval of military action (that their member of Congress should oppose the authorization of force), the President still plans on leaving a warmongering option on the table. Many believe that while a President should really “stick to his guns” and not be easily swayed by public opinion, Obama is literally “sticking to the guns” and still making the claim that military force is an imperative for international and humanitarian reasons, despite an overload of reasons against it.
It would seem obvious to suggest that instead of making a combatant move seem mandatory, the Obama administration should demote its status to an “option.” If it remains mandatory, the administration should expect an embarrassing defeat by Congress.
However, in light of Russia’s promising proposal announced today, the public will hold onto the more hopefully more peaceful resolution for the dear lives of Syrian innocents and put all their faith into only a possibility. If Syria has already neglected the humanitarian law by possessing and using chemical weapons, why should anyone believe that they would adhere to a proposal by Syria? It seems absurd to think that Assad will hand over the keys to a chemical warfare plant to a bunch of international officers after he gives them a grand tour only after the chance to shop in an adjacent gift shop.
Therefore, we believe that the President should still remain steadfast in his proposition as to not put all the weight onto the Russian agreement.
There are no guarantees.
Hannah Dreyfus, Stern ’14
The unknown is frightening. Fear of the unknown often provokes a response disproportionate to the actual danger of the stimulant.
This is currently the case with President Obama’s proposal to carry out a military strike on Damascus. The president has proposed the strike in response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons against its own people. This attack constituted crossing what the President termed a ‘red-line.’ Despite Assad’s recalcitrant denial of the attack, overwhelming evidence, including video footage released by US officials showing young children gasping for breath and rows of dead bodies in the hours after the chemical attack, make it blatantly obvious that this heinous crime was committed.
But the question is not if the crime was despicable. The question is whether or not US military action will exacerbate the problem.
The answer to that question is a resounding yes.
A recent editorial in The Denver Post put it persuasively: “…gassing civilians, as horrifying as that is, is not any more despicable than bombing them by the thousands or crushing them with tanks.”
Let’s return to our premise: The unknown is apt to provoke a disproportionate or irrational response. In this case, chemical weapons were the fearful unknown. Like a terrorist attack, the uses of unconventional methods of warfare have a history of provoking drastic responses.
What we must bear in mind, with President Obama’s threat on the table, is that conventional military action, such as the strike the president is proposing, comes with an ugly price tag as well. The attack would risk hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent lives, atop the already egregious numbers. The attack would create a vacuum of power, opening up daunting opportunities for anti-Western jihadists. The deep-rooted unrest created by the attack could easily erupt in another civil war between jihadists and more moderate rebel factions.
Yes, the continued rule of Bashar Assad in Syria would be tragic. But there is no guarantee that a US military strike would ameliorate the problem.
Let’s not let fear of the unknown inform a response that would confirm fears we know all too well.