President Obama’s administration has consistently advocated for the resignation of Syria’s President Assad and urged the United Nations Security Council to act in order to restore peace in the country. Presently, debates on whether the United States should strike against Damascus for having deployed chemical weapons have advanced to a Congressional level. The use of chemical weapons in Syria or anywhere else in the world could have unimaginable consequences for the rest of the world. The fact that Assad’s government recklessly deployed chemical weapons to strengthen their attack flies in the face of the United States’ abhorrence of the use of chemical weapons and the promotion of international justice. Moreover, the state of chaos is ideal for Al Qaeda infiltration into the country which augments the United States position of Syria as a potential hub for international terrorism. Over the years, the United States policy towards the Middle East has drifted between limited intervention and military intervention in order to encourage regime change in chaotic areas.
However, international law and practice indicate that military action against another sovereign state can only be commenced after the approval of the Security Council has been obtained. A preemptive attack by the United States would thus not only require Congressional approval as required by the United States Constitution but support from the international community in order to avoid international backlash from countries that support the Assad regime. A military attack against Syria will probably not be approved by Congress for several reasons. First, despite the fact that preliminary reports indicate that the chemical attack was conducted with the approval of President Assad, conclusive evidence of the same is yet to be brought forward. A military attack would bring the ultimate motives of the United States to question; are they really concerned with the lives of civilians or overthrowing President Assad.
Second, precedent indicates that Congress has generally been reluctant to approve military intervention in other countries ravaged by war. For example, the motion to instigate military action in Libya failed despite the support of the United Nations and the United Kingdom. Third, the prevailing accusation against Assad is his purported crime against the citizens of Syria. A further attack by the United States would just serve to escalate the death count and the number of innocent people injured. Fourth, many Americans would rather abstain from military intervention in Syria. Members of Congress represent their constituents thus a vote for military intervention would be against their wishes. This is likely to reflect badly on them during the subsequent election. Fifth, Syria’s case forms a political dilemma. Russia forms Syria’s greatest ally which makes a United Nations Security Council Resolution to launch preemptive attacks against Russia unlikely. An attack against Syria could result in strained relationships between the United States and Russia or even war between the two countries.
References
Nikitin, M. D., Kerr, P. K., & Feickert, A. (2013). Syria's Chemical Weapons: Issues for Congress. Washington: Congressional Research Service.
Sharp, J. M., & Blanchard, C. M. (2011). Unrest in Syria and U.S. Sanctions against the Asad Regime. Washington: Congressional Research Services.
Sharp, J. M., & Blanchard, C. M. (2012). Armed Conflict in Syria: U.S.and International Response. Washington: Congressional Research Service.
Sharp, J. M., & Blanchard, C. M. (2012). Syria and U.S. Policy. Washington: Congressional Research Service.
