This week, the role of the United States in the Syrian civil war has taken a new direction. The Syrian civil war, a largely sectarian conflict waged between the Alawite regime of Bashar al-Assad and a mostly Sunni resistance, has taken the lives of more than 100,000 Syrian citizens and has displaced over 5 million since 2011.
Although the United States has taken a mostly passive role in the conflict so far, this has changed this past week in response to the Syrian government’s decision to utilize chemical weapons, which has resulted in the deaths of more than 1,400 people according to an assessment released by the Obama administration.
With the use of chemical weapons, the Syrian government has crossed a red line set by President Obama last August. President Obama stated, “We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that’s a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons.”
As a consequence of crossing this red line, Obama postured toward limited missile strikes against the Syrian regime this week before delaying the implementation of the missile strikes until a vote for congressional approval. His decision to seek congressional approval for a limited strike has generated a great deal of public opinion, both in opposition and support.
Obama has faced criticism for seeking congressional approval because it gives the Syrian regime time to prepare for a potential missile strike, and it presents the United States as indecisive in its foreign policy. Regarding the former charge, the House and Senate are expected to vote on a potential missile strike against Syria on or shortly after Sept. 9 when Congress returns from recess. This gives the Syrian government at least a week to fortify strategic assets and relocate chemical and standard weapons to civilian areas that American missiles will not strike.
Regarding the latter charge, both domestic and international officials have questioned whether the United States will fulfill its rhetoric in the Middle East.
Concerning supporters of the Syrian opposition such as Jordan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Salman Shaikh, of the Brookings Institution, notes, “Many Arab leaders already think that Obama’s word cannot be trusted — I am talking about his friends and allies — and I am afraid this (the delay for Congressional approval) will reinforce that belief.”
Others worry that the perceived inaction in Syria presents broader implications of a weak American foreign policy, especially involving Iran, a major supporter of the Syrian government.
Analysts such as Michael Herzog, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, note that the lack of faith in the ability of the United States to respond swiftly to a potential threat could influence Israel to act unilaterally against an Iranian threat in the future, which could initiate a conflict much grander in scale than Syria.
On the other hand, many officials laud President Obama’s move to seek congressional approval because of the popular opinion of U.S. citizens as well as a lack of strong international consensus. A recent NBC News poll showed that almost 80 percent of U.S. citizens want Obama to seek congressional approval for a missile strike in Syria. However, the absence of a strong international consensus has also played a large role in Obama’s decision to seek congressional approval. Efforts to arbitrate the conflict from the United Nations have failed, with Russia threatening to veto any international military option in Syria. In terms of coalitions outside of the U.N., the United States has only received the support of France, Turkey and a lukewarm signal of support by the Arab League. Of particular significance is the fact that Great Britain, the United States’ most reliable foreign policy partner, has indicated that it would not support a U.S. military strike against Syria.
Without international support from the U.N. or a convincing coalition, many believe it is important in terms of political legitimacy for the Obama administration to secure domestic support for a limited strike against Syria, especially without broad international support. Foreign policy journalist Fred Kaplan notes, “It’s a matter of political legitimacy, which will be needed to convince Assad that there’s determination behind the first few airstrikes — and to provide ballast in case the attack doesn’t have much effect.”
With legitimate reasons to both criticize and praise Obama’s decision to wait for congressional approval in his decision to launch limited missile strikes against Syria, the American people must wait until next week, at the earliest, to see if Congress will decide whether the United States should leave its footprint on the Syrian conflict.
