Obama's Syria Plan: Ill Conceived, Ill Timed

While there are very real atrocities, the situation requires careful diplomacy, not military force.

Posted:
 
joseph_syria
Opposition to strikes against Syria in Washington (Mandel Ngan/Getty Images); Barack Obama (Sergey Guneev/Getty Images)

(The Root) -- President Obama's decision to pursue military action against Syria (he's currently trying to rally congressional and public support) in response to the Bashar al-Assad government's use of chemical weapons is unfolding as a major foreign policy error, one that may severely undermine American credibility abroad and domestic priorities at home.

Obama's march to war in Syria is both ill conceived and ill timed. One week after commemorating the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, the United States stands on the precipice of another conflict in the Middle East, this time lacking even a semblance of the kind of coalition forces behind the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In the United Kingdom, Parliament rejected Prime Minister David Cameron's overture to join another American-led overseas adventure; and the United Nation's Security Council, the internationally recognized body for the deployment of global force, has refused to sanction the use of force.

As law professor Jeremy Levitt points out in an insightful essay, the Obama administration's political strategy in Syria is "unwise, alarming and illegal." Tom Hayden, the founder of Students for a Democratic Society and a longtime peace activist, concurs with this assessment and has issued "a call for forceful diplomacy" in Syria that stops short of military intervention.

In light of this opposition, Obama has been searching for allies among some of his fiercest critics, including Republican foreign policy hawks Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. McCain, whose questionable judgment in choosing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice presidential candidate helped cost him the White House in 2008, is willing to back the president as long as the authorization of force is expanded beyond the limited air strikes first proposed by the administration.

Why the rush to war? On a political level the president made a tactical mistake when he asserted that the Assad regime would cross a "red line" if it deployed chemical weapons in Syria and would be met with a punitive American response.

In St. Petersburg, Russia, last week for a meeting of the G20, Obama was on the offensive, forced to make the case that the moral hazard of chemical weapons released in Syria posed an existential threat to neighboring Middle East countries and the wider international community. According to American intelligence (corroborated by the British) -- which incorrectly noted that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction during the run-up to the Iraq War -- chemical weapons implicated in the deaths of more than 1,400 Syrians, including 400 children, can be directly traced back to the Assad government.

We arrive at a crucial moment in American history, one in which growing economic disparities between the rich and poor threaten the very fabric of our democracy, and the American dream remains out of reach for millions of hardworking families. This is exactly the wrong time to risk American lives, resources and energy on another protracted war of choice that politicians argue is one of necessity.

This is not a call for some kind of American isolationism, something that has been most forcefully articulated by Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul and which has strong backing by libertarians. America's enormous financial and military power offers the world a beacon of hope and inspiration and can, when deployed judiciously, be an incredibly effective tool for the promotion of human rights, health care, women's equality and democracy.

There are very real atrocities, including the slaughter of innocent women and children, happening on the ground in Syria. The international community, led by the United States, must provide diplomatic and humanitarian aid to the Syrian people. But this requires more the surgical scalpel of diplomacy than the hammer of American military force.