President Obama has called for a military strike against the Syrian government for using lethal nerve gas against its own men, women and children. President Obama’s act is courageous. It is an attempt to act in a humanitarian way. But good intentions are not enough. Before our nation takes such an action, we need to know what our goals are, how we will accomplish them, and how it will affect our own national wellbeing.
The problem for the president is that the situation in Syria is complex. No matter what we do or don’t do, we are unlikely to get a good outcome. President Bashar Assad’s regime has taken terrible actions against its own people, but its opponents may be no better, and possibly even worse.
Obama is trying to get approval from our nation and its foreign allies to attack Syria with missiles, without putting American troops into Syria’s territory.
“No boots on the ground,” White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough has said. Although there is no direct threat to the United States, Obama remarked that the act of using chemical weapons crossed a “red line,” putting the international community’s creditability on the line.
The use of poison gas was prohibited internationally in 1925 by the Geneva Protocol, after its use by several nations in World War I. Many observers now believe that in the past year, more than 1,000 Syrian citizens have died from the use of chemical gas. In addition, more than 100,000 people have been killed, and the United Nations stated that two million civilians have fled to nearby countries and over four million civilians have been displaced inside Syria.
While the American people are concerned about what the Syrian government is doing, a majority oppose taking military action against Syria, at this time. A recent CNN poll indicated that 6 out of 10 American people oppose an attack against Syria.
Ameri-cans are tired of wars, especially after Iraq and Afghanistan. We may win them in the short run, but over time, nothing important appears to change the problems of those countries.
Opponents of military involvement in Syria argue, as Congressman Allan Grayson, D-Fla., said, “Our own needs in America come first. Death of civilians is regrettable and civil war is regrettable, but the U.S. has not been attacked. We’re neither the world’s policeman, nor its judge or jury.”
There is also legitimate concern that many of the rebels are affiliated with al-Qaida. We might end up helping people who are terrorists. Also, some of the nations that are supporting the Syrian government, such as Iran, have threatened retaliatory actions against the United States, Israel, or other of our allies.
Which nations will stand with President Obama if he attacks Syria? Britain has voted not to engage in Obama’s military strike but they will be supportive of America’s actions, along with the Arab League, the European Union and 11 other nations that oppose the use of poison gas by the Syrian government. But no other country has offered to be a part of a military strike against Syria except France, which is waiting for the final U.N. inspection report before committing itself.
Secretary of State John Kerry has said that if we do not act against Syria now, it could affect foreign countries’ respect for America’s leadership. If we do not act after Syria crossed a red line, will Iran and North Korea respect the positions we have taken about their actions?
However, it is not clear that what Obama wants to do will accomplish much. To win a war, especially against a tough military enemy, we cannot tip our strategy of where, when and how we intend to strike, timeline plans and our war strategy defined. What America has done during the current administration is contrary to these principles that successful military leaders learn about in war secrecy strategies, combat planning and exit objectives. Syria could be the start of another war that even Pentagon officials have felt we should not be engaged in.
What is really needed is a negotiated settlement between the Syrian government and the rebels, while getting Assad out of power. The right procedure would have been for the United Nations to take action against Syria when the gassing and civilian atrocities occurred.
Sometimes a problem does not have a solution. There is no reliable leadership to support, so nothing we do would make a positive difference in Syria.
For most Americans, the decision is already cast not to strike Syria.
— Bernard Featherman is a business columnist for the Journal Tribune and former president of the Biddeford-Saco Chamber of Commerce.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
