Every little boy knows you need three things to fight a war: good guys, bad guys, and a way to beat the bad guys.
President Barack Obama seems to have forgotten his childhood.
On Saturday, the president requested congressional approval for military action in Syria, a conflict with no good guys, plenty of bad guys, and no definition of victory. Waged between a tyrannical regime and a rebel army, the Syrian civil war poses no immediate threat to our national security. The United States should not intervene.
This war is part of the “Arab Spring”—the illusory democratization of the Middle East—in full flourish. In April 2011, Syrian protesters began demonstrating against their dictator, President Bashar al-Assad. The regime responded by kidnapping, torturing, and shooting the protesters. Two and a half years of civil war have ravaged the country, with two million refugees displaced and more than one hundred thousand Syrians dead.
Obama called long ago for Assad to step down, saying his violent regime had “lost legitimacy.” But during a press conference a year ago, a reporter asked Obama about chemical weapons in Syria. He then uttered the ironclad phrase of foreign policy: “red line.”
But in March, Assad used chemical weapons for the first time, crossing Obama’s “red line” with no consequences more severe than a few words of dismay. Every day of inaction since then has diminished the credibility of Obama’s word and, consequently, that of the United States. In August, Assad used chemical weapons again. This time, Obama waited nine days before speaking about the attack, calling for American military involvement when he finally did. Non-engagement, he said, “risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.”
The most compelling reason for military intervention is that Obama must defend the credibility of the United States. But Obama’s chronic dawdling shows he isn’t serious about chemical weapons being the true “red line.” Chemical weapons alone, however, should never have been the tripwire for this war. It is better for Obama to retract his “red line” statement than to send troops into battle to defend his hubris. Avoiding personal humiliation does not justify war.
No leader should ever deploy chemical weapons on his own people. To do so is “brutal and flagrant,” Secretary of State John Kerry said.
America, however, is not the policeman on the world’s chemical weapons detail. Punishing Assad for using them cannot be the sole reason for endangering the lives of our troops by engaging with Syria.
Before Congress declares war on Assad, it ought to ask whether Syria poses a genuine national security threat. The answer is no. Syria does not pose an imminent threat. As Sen. Rand Paul, who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee, explained, “The war in Syria has no clear national security connection to the United States and victory by either side will not necessarily bring into power people friendly to the United States.”
Assad’s allies include Russia, China, and Hezbollah, while the rebel army is comprised of factions, many associated with al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood. Neither side promises real justice, lasting peace, or flourishing civil society.
Without an ally in Syria supporting life and liberty, without a threat to American national security, and without a clear path to help the Syrian people, President Obama and Congress should stay out of the conflict. Maybe playing an old-fashioned game of good guys and bad guys could explain why.
