During the past few weeks, the possibility that America might use lethal force in Syria loomed larger with the passing of each day. Moreover, oddly, there was no real effort by our own national leaders to seek alternative applications of national power. In a twist, Russia finally stepped forward as the advocate for diplomacy and peaceful conflict resolution.
America typically thinks of itself as a calming force, a mature state which seeks to maintain peace and only seek deadly and costly conflict as an absolute last resort. Contrary to this national identity, in the aftermath of repeated terror attacks, America has struck out at her enemies during the past dozen years.
It is not difficult to describe the similarities to our 2003 invasion of Iraq and the direction that the Obama Administration has pursued relative to Syria. Prior to that conflict, the Bush Administration asserted that Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein possessed large caches of weapons of mass destruction and had sponsored terror. Realizing that the International Community and the United Nations specifically, might encourage other methods of conflict resolution, the Bush Administration built a “Coalition of the Willing” and used aggressive force to bring the Hussein regime down. After expending hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American and Iraqi lives on a war that the United States did not have to wage, for a purpose that we now collectively understand never existed, we find ourselves in a position to avoid similar mistakes in Syria. However, instead of reviewing our very recent past mistakes, the Obama Administration turned its back on its other options and pursued the aggressive use of force.
At the moment, it appears that Russia now stands in the shoes of the peacemaker, and the United States is the beneficiary of cooler heads. At this juncture, perhaps it is a good time to reflect on the events and policies that led to this reality.
Eerily similar to America’s position in 2003, the Obama Administration has steadfastly asserted that the Syrian government has chemical weapons and has used them to murder more than a thousand of its own citizens. As expected the United Nation’s team of inspectors, who are onsite where the alleged attack occurred, found that the weapons were used but made no declaration as to who used the sarin.
President Obama has made a number of public appearances speaking out for support and arguing that America basically has two options: act or do nothing. While this may form the basis for a dramatic and compelling argument, it does have a substantial flaw: It is not true. America, the most powerful country in the world, always has more than two options. She always has what international law provides, which is the first and best option during times of strife: diplomacy. Due to Secretary of State John Kerry’s slip of tongue in which he said that President Assad could prevent a U.S. attack by giving up his chemicals weapons within the week, President Obama is now forced to pay heed to the Russian initiative proposing diplomacy.
Russian President Vladimir Putin wrote an open letter published in The New York Times. In his letter, Putin asserted, “No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. Such collapse is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.”
It is hard to disagree with this logic; if President Obama continues to pursue military action without the consent of the U.N., he will be voiding the power from an organization that America helped build and so fervently supports. Likewise, although the commander-in-chief does have Constitutional authority to act without Congressional consent, doing so in a matter where America is not acting in self-defense sends a negative message to the people of this country, most of whom do not support military action.
Putin continued, “Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council.” He asserted that anything else is unacceptable under the U. N. Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.
Putin further argued that a breach of the Charter would be defined as an act of aggression directed toward the Syrian government, which could anger surrounding Syrian supporters, triggering a conflict that nobody wants. It cannot be an option to break laws in order to appear strong. International law is in place for a good reason, to keep peace.
As Putin later outlined, an attack in Syria could have lasting effects that could send that entire region of the Middle East into violent turmoil from Israel to Iran.
While Putin’s article generally makes sense, his ulterior motives deserve a keen look. Russia, as a U.N. Security Council member, has the power to veto any proposed attacks. Thus, Putin is advocating a model wherein all future American use of military force would be subject to Russian approval and control. That’s a pretty nice setup for Russia but not such a great deal for the United States.
Interestingly enough, Russia has not sought U.N. approval for many of its own military ventures such as the 1980 invasion of Afghanistan (in fact, the U.N. enthusiastically rejected that invasion). This reality does tend to generate more than a few questions in regard to Putin’s motives. It does not, however, change the fact that America should seek U.N. approval for situations like Syria.
Our national prestige and legitimacy are at stake. The Syrian conflict does not put America’s back against the wall; we do not need to respond with immediate military force to defend ourselves. American sovereignty is not threatened by deferring to the U.N. Instead, if our President still desires to use military force, we have the time to take this to the world’s stage and ask the important questions and prove our case to the world’s arbiters. If the Obama administration does not get the verdict it seeks, it must stand down from military action. While Putin has his own reasons to disagree with our President, in this narrow set of circumstances, it seems, incredibly, that he is correct.
Recent polls by the Wall Street Journal show that 75 percent of Americans believe we should focus our energy elsewhere, like here at home. Similar to the American people, the larger international community, including nearly all our allies, do not support military action in Syria. It is important to understand when America should walk shoulder to shoulder with her sister nation states. The case of Syria is an example of when diplomacy and alternative forms of national power make a lot more sense than hurling bombs and missiles.
