What to do about Syria?

The White House cannot make the decision on its own to punish the Syrian government for its alleged use of chemical weapons against rebel forces in that country’s civil war. For that reason, it has now turned to Congress with the hope of gaining support for a possible military actiongiven the absence of international backing.

The Obama administration can’t rely on its major ally, Great Britain, given the parliamentary vote. Nor is anything likely to come from the United Nations given the threat made by Russia, an ally of Syria, to veto a vote.

This leaves Obama few options but to seek domestic support, setting him up for one of the many rejections by the House of Representatives. But even achieving a possible internal consensus would not provide international legality for a military action no matter how limited.

Obama declared that the Syrian government is preparing to use more chemical weapons making a military strike all the more necessary to stop the horrific deaths of innocent civilians. This certainly provides a sense of urgency that is difficult to negate, although we are still haunted with the memories of Iraq.

The president also opened up the national debate over the role of the U.S. on the world stage. One discussion being about morality – within something as immoral as war – and the use of banned weapons in a civil conflict. The question at the end of the day is always the same: Is it the role of our country to be the policeman of the world?

The history of U.S. foreign policy is full of contradictions including over the use of chemical weapons. Calls to come to the aid of a foreign people often mask other non-humanitarian interests. That is the reason formuch international suspicion of U.S. actions.

That said, the U.S. finds itself in the midst of a crossroads as a superpower with a noble vision of its sense of purpose, with well-defined geopolitical interests, and with its allies of the moment. This is a mix which is all too familiar and all too dangerous.

Bringing Congress into the decision must not be allowed to reduce a complex global issue into a domestic political debate, much less a unilateral action with unpredictable consequences.