Should the US Intervene Militarily in Syria?

The big international story of the past week is the apparent use of chemical weapons in the civil war in Syria and the signals from the US that it, along with whichever allies it can persuade to go along, may take military action in response. This has naturally given rise to vociferous debate in the US and elsewhere about whether a military response is appropriate or even legal. I have received several requests from different progressive groups asking me to sign petitions opposing military action or insisting that Congress must authorize any attack. Likewise, my right-wing Representative said in his newsletter that he is calling on President Barack Obama to ask for Congressional authorization before taking any military action. Another progressive group sent an email asking for opinions regarding US military action in Syria, with options of "Yes", "No" and "Not Sure" and space to further explain your position. My response was "Not Sure", which at this point is still my position on the issue.

Of the groups opposing US military actions, some did a better job of arguing their position than others. One simply railed against the whole idea of going to war, raising the specter of Iraq and other stupid ventures in the past. Another focused primarily on the legality of military action and the War Powers Act. A related approach was taken by those who talked mainly about "vital national security interests" of the US as being the only legitimate rationale for a US President taking action without Congressional authorization. Some simply argued that US military action would make things worse.

For my own part, I have a problem with anyone who completely ignores humanitarian considerations as if they didn't exist. Whatever arguments one makes against intervention – and there are many good ones to be made – it first has to be acknowledged that the situation in Syria is awful and no one should be comfortable with the idea of just standing by and doing nothing. I won't say that the US or anyone else is compelled to take any particular action without considering all the downsides, and it is possible that a thorough consideration will lead to the conclusion that there is nothing the US can do to improve things, but no debate about taking action can ignore all the dead innocents in Syria (or even all the dead combatants).

Some have questioned whether it is absolutely proven that the Assad regime was responsible for the recent gas attacks. As far as I am aware, the rebels probably would have more difficulty launching a large scale chemical attack due to their relative lack of heavy artillery, but I can't say that it is impossible. Several of the reports on the US moves towards a military response mention that the US intercepted communications among low-ranking Syrian officers discussing the attack. Depending on what exactly was said, I am prepared to believe that it could be proven that the Syrian military was responsible, though the use of chemical weapons could still have been either a mistake or the result of a decision taken at a lower level without consulting the high command. Let's say, however, that the case against the Syrian leadership is compelling. What of the other arguments against intervention?

The US leadership is basing their arguments in favor of intervention on the assertion that the use of chemical weapons cannot be tolerated. In one mailing, US Representative Alan Grayson made the point that tens of thousands have already been killed in Syria, many in ways that are at least as horrific than a poison gas attack (I'd say that in many cases, even more so). So why does a chemical attack justify intervention when those other deaths didn't? This is a legitimate question. I personally think that if military intervention is justified, it was justified long before this. However, it is an unfortunate fact that a single large scale slaughter, complete with pictures of dead children, using a sinister-seeming weapon like poison gas, is more likely to galvanize world opinion in favor of action than any number of smaller-scale massacres or instances of torture using "conventional" means.

Then what of the War Powers Act and the requirement that action be approved by Congress unless the "vital national security interests" of the US are at stake? This is really a major obstacle and is one of the reasons I hesitate to support a military strike. I think the War Powers Act is flawed in that it doesn't allow for emergency action in the name of humanitarian causes. Even in the best of times, it would take some time for Congress to act. On the event of a truly horrific mass atrocity, such as what happened in Rwanda in the 1990s, a delay of a few days could mean thousands of additional deaths (not that the US or anyone else really tried to stop the slaughter in Rwanda...). Given how dysfunctional Congress is now, it might take forever for action to be authorized. I also don't agree with the argument that the "vital interests" of the US have to be at stake; or to put it another way, I think everyone should consider stopping atrocities one of their "vital interests". However, given the way the law is written, I am also highly uncomfortable with idea of allowing the President to just ignore it, even in a good cause. Once that precedent has been set (and some would argue it has been set already in previous military interventions), it will be even harder to stop future Presidents from launching military action for much less noble reasons. While in general if forced to choose, I'd favor doing what is right over doing what is legal, I don't think the future consequences of such a step can be ignored. The same conundrum applies to the question of legality of military action under international law (though this sort of situation is a very good argument for taking away the veto powers of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council; unfortunately, none of them, including the US, is willing to give them up).

But more than anything else, the real question is whether military intervention by the US or other outside powers will make things better in Syria. This is what really concerns me, more than any questions of legality. What we should be talking about is, what will improve the situation for all the civilians in Syria caught in the middle of this vicious struggle? If we can be fairly certain that military action would help and almost completely certain it won't make things worse, than I would favor it. Unfortunately, I don't think that anyone can guarantee that military action will be unequivocally beneficial (some would say that "beneficial military action" is itself a contradiction in terms, but while I understand where they are coming from, I don't agree that such a thing is completely impossible).

The NATO intervention in the Libyan civil war is the one of the most obvious recent cases of outside military action playing a decisive role in a conflict. But even leaving aside the important question of whether Libya is truly better off now than it was before, there are a lot of differences between the situation in Libya and that in Syria. In Libya, there were clear front lines, with the rebels holding the east and scattered pockets elsewhere, and the Qaddafi regime holding the west. It was a relatively simple matter for NATO air power to target the regime's forces in the Libyan desert where much of the fighting was taking place. Even in Libya, however, NATO air power was much less effective in fighting in and around the rebellious city of Misrata in the West, since it was much harder to attack the regime's forces without hitting the rebels or civilians. In Syria, there are few if any clear front lines, and most of the fighting is in urban environments like Misrata's, so it is doubtful that a prolonged air war will do much good, and it is likely to result in more civilian deaths (though one might argue that things are so bad for people in Syria now that it could hardly get worse). A more long-term useful military action might be setting up a no-fly zone, probably along the Turkish border, to protect refugees, though this is less likely to have a decisive effect on the course of the war.

However, from the hints dropped by Obama and other US officials, it seems that the US is merely contemplating a single strike to punish Assad for the use of chemical weapons. If done right, this is at least unlikely to make things worse (since I think substantial retaliation from Syria or its main allies is unlikely, due to the risk that they would be inviting more US intervention when they have their hands full already), and it would at least allow the US to say that it had sent a message about the use of chemical weapons. On the other hand, it would have the negative political repercussions mentioned above due to the questions about its legality and yet would probably do little practical good in terms of ending the conflict in Syria. What will it take to do that, especially without leaving either the bloodstained Assad regime or the radical elements among the rebels in charge? I really don't know, but, whether or not the US decides on a military strike on this occasion, I certainly hope those in a position to act will keep looking for a palatable option aimed at a long-term solution.