Opinion: Obama's policy on Syria doesn't make sense, but neither does yours
On Sept. 10, President Barack Obama delivered a rare address to the nation from the East Room of the White House. The President was surrounded by the familiar set pieces from his announcement of Osama bin Laden’s death two years ago, yet the subject of this speech was not an ending, nor a beginning, but rather a question. Specifically, what is our national policy on Syria?
The first half of the President’s 16 minute speech was a rehashing of everything that has led to this point, about how mass protests in Syria after the Arab Spring led to two years of bloody civil war in that country. Obama reminded the nation and the world that he, until the very last moment, refused to use U.S. armed forces to influence the outcome (if there is to be one) of the civil war, except in response to any evidence that chemical weapons were used by either side. Obama notably omitted that even in the face of previous instances of chemical weapons being used in the conflict, he refused to strike Syria or otherwise take military action.
Obama then introduced the events of Aug. 21, when a thousand Syrian civilians were poisoned to death in the suburbs of Damascus in an apparent chemical attack by the military of Bashar al-Assad. He took us through the rapid buildup of military rhetoric and arms, as well as the sudden decision to let the Congress vote on whether the President should actually order a strike against al-Assad’s forces. He concluded with the recent “Russian Proposal” to force al-Assad to put his chemical weapons under international control, and requested that Congress postpone their vote on military action.
The speech, like Obama’s Syria policy itself, twisted very much and decided very little.
To be fair though, you should not blame the President entirely for America’s unintelligible policy on Syria for the very fact that your own policy on Syria makes very little sense. I realize, of course that I cannot see you and may not even know you, nor are you responsible for crafting our nation’s foreign policy, but I can guess that if you were in charge of such a project, you would create largely the same mess of a plan.
In 2011, you were likely inspired by the images of protest coming from not only Syria, but many other countries experiencing the Arab Spring. In the two years that followed, you were probably disheartened by the violent twist the revolution in Syria took, upset at the bloodshed, the civilian casualties and the stalemate that ensued.
Perhaps you, like Sen. John McCain, became furious with Obama for not intervening in the last two years, and wished that he would declare “enough is enough” and send warships into the Mediterranean Sea. Perhaps you joined a human rights organization and helped sign petitions and organized letter-writing campaigns to pressure Obama and the international community, in vague terms, to do something to stop the violence. Perhaps you became angry at your fellow Americans for not caring enough about the Syrian conflict.
Yet it was still a shock when you first heard that American military action was all but certain in the wake of the Aug. 21 attack. Perhaps you were suddenly very angry after all these months fuming over the lack of American involvement that Americans were getting involved. Surely doing nothing was better than the imperialist Americans attacking another Middle Eastern country. Perhaps you were instead angry that the attack, if there was to be one, would be small and would not change the course of the civil war in the rebels’ favor. Or maybe you thought such an attack would help those rebels who have aligned themselves with al-Qaeda take control of the country. In any case, you were not happy with this development.
Of course, you were equally unhappy when the President announced he would let Congress decide whether or not to strike Syria. “Congress?!” you probably asked to no one in particular, “They can’t possibly make that decision, there is no time to waste!” Or perhaps you decided that Congress was just another part of the imperialist machine that would push the United States closer to conquering Syria, which as the President’s refusal to use military action for the last two years shows, was probably the plan all along.
Not that the Russian Proposal is any better. After all, you may think, the Russians are allies of Assad. Can they really be trusted? Or perhaps you think that going along with the Russian plan signals to the world that America will not attack if chemical weapons are used by evil dictators. Future aggressors now have free reign to kill as many civilians as they want, you might insist. America looks weak, you say, or perhaps you say America is an empire. Either way, it’s best to continue lecturing your friends on how they don’t care enough about the rest of the world.
Perhaps it’s time to admit that Obama’s Syria policy doesn’t make sense, but neither does yours. It’s time to admit that you don’t really know what you want the United States to do about Syria, Bashar al-Assad or chemical weapons. Your personal policy has twisted every which way, along with the policy of your fellow citizens, along American foreign policy. So if you are now unhappy with the President’s address, perhaps you should watch it again and remind yourself that you are essentially looking at your own moral and political uncertainty and confusion reflecting back at you.
For the moment, the question “What are we going to do about Syria,” remains without an answer, though we’ve examined almost all of them.
“Americans always do the right thing,” once said Winston Churchill. “After they’ve tried everything else.”