Despite the pumped-up threats and quickening military preparations, President Obama has yet to make a convincing legal or strategic case for military action against Syria. While there should be some kind of international response to the chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds of civilians last week, Mr. Obama has yet to spell out how that response would effectively deter further use of chemical weapons.
For starters, where is the proof that President Bashar al-Assad of Syria carried out the attack? American, British, French and Turkish officials have been unequivocal in blaming Mr. Assad for the attack, which seems likely since there has been no indication that his regime has lost control of its chemical weapons arsenal or that the opposition has the capability to deliver such a weapon. Still, no evidence to support this claim has been released.
If the Obama administration has such evidence, it should make it public immediately. Given America’s gross failure in Iraq — when the Bush administration went to war over nonexistent nuclear weapons — the standard of proof is now unquestionably higher. We are also eager to hear the conclusions of the United Nations inspectors who are in Syria taking samples from victims and interviewing witnesses. On Wednesday, the Syrian government added to the fog by blaming the rebels for three previously unreported chemical attacks last week. Those claims also must be investigated.
Before Britain proposed a resolution at the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday, the White House seemed ready to ignore the U. N. because Russia and China had repeatedly thwarted efforts to hold Mr. Assad to account. Despite diplomatic frustrations, the Security Council, on which Russia and China sit and have veto power, should be the first venue for dealing with this matter since chemical weapons use is a war crime and banned under international treaties.
Ideally, once presented with evidence, the council would condemn Mr. Assad, impose a ban on arms shipments to Syria (including materials used to make chemical weapons, which the regime is trying to buy on the open market) and send Mr. Assad’s name to the International Criminal Court for prosecution. That is what should happen; Mr. Assad’s Russia and Chinese enablers are the ones most able to stop his brutality.
Instead, Britain proposed a draft that would authorize military force against Syria. Predictably, Russia, Syria’s main arms supplier, and China balked, but there is still value in pushing the resolution to a vote so they are forced to choose to defend a leader accused of gassing his people.
Whether that resolution is acted on or not, President Obama now seems prepared to move toward military strikes. But not only is he unlikely to win Security Council backing for such an operation, he has failed to lay out any legal basis for it and has not won support from key organizations — namely the Arab League and NATO — that could provide legitimacy. The league, in a statement, did charge the Syrian government with chemical weapons use, but its member states like Saudi Arabia, a top funder of the anti-Assad rebels, declined to support the use of force publicly.
Without broad international backing, a military strike by the United States; France and Britain, two former colonial powers; and Turkey could well give Mr. Assad a propaganda advantage.
There is also no sign that the White House will ask Congress to authorize military action, which seems to put Mr. Obama at odds with his own past statements about the limits of presidential war powers. House Speaker John Boehner sent Mr. Obama a trenchant letter on Wednesday, asking more than a dozen critical questions, including whether the administration had contingency plans in case foreign powers, especially Iran and Russia, were implicated in the chemical attacks and how the administration planned to pay for the military action.
Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain also ran into domestic pressure that forced him to push back a quick vote in Parliament to support military action.
Mr. Obama has yet to make clear how military strikes — which officials say will last one to two days and target military units that carried out chemical attacks, the headquarters overseeing the effort and the artillery that have launched the attacks — will actually deter chemical attacks without further inflaming a region in turmoil and miring the United States in the Syrian civil war.
Any action, military or otherwise, must be tailored to advance a political settlement between the Assad regime and the opposition, the only rational solution to the conflict. If military action has a broader strategic purpose and is part of a coherent diplomatic plan, Mr. Obama needs to explain it.
For starters, where is the proof that President Bashar al-Assad of Syria carried out the attack? American, British, French and Turkish officials have been unequivocal in blaming Mr. Assad for the attack, which seems likely since there has been no indication that his regime has lost control of its chemical weapons arsenal or that the opposition has the capability to deliver such a weapon. Still, no evidence to support this claim has been released.
If the Obama administration has such evidence, it should make it public immediately. Given America’s gross failure in Iraq — when the Bush administration went to war over nonexistent nuclear weapons — the standard of proof is now unquestionably higher. We are also eager to hear the conclusions of the United Nations inspectors who are in Syria taking samples from victims and interviewing witnesses. On Wednesday, the Syrian government added to the fog by blaming the rebels for three previously unreported chemical attacks last week. Those claims also must be investigated.
Before Britain proposed a resolution at the United Nations Security Council on Wednesday, the White House seemed ready to ignore the U. N. because Russia and China had repeatedly thwarted efforts to hold Mr. Assad to account. Despite diplomatic frustrations, the Security Council, on which Russia and China sit and have veto power, should be the first venue for dealing with this matter since chemical weapons use is a war crime and banned under international treaties.
Ideally, once presented with evidence, the council would condemn Mr. Assad, impose a ban on arms shipments to Syria (including materials used to make chemical weapons, which the regime is trying to buy on the open market) and send Mr. Assad’s name to the International Criminal Court for prosecution. That is what should happen; Mr. Assad’s Russia and Chinese enablers are the ones most able to stop his brutality.
Instead, Britain proposed a draft that would authorize military force against Syria. Predictably, Russia, Syria’s main arms supplier, and China balked, but there is still value in pushing the resolution to a vote so they are forced to choose to defend a leader accused of gassing his people.
Whether that resolution is acted on or not, President Obama now seems prepared to move toward military strikes. But not only is he unlikely to win Security Council backing for such an operation, he has failed to lay out any legal basis for it and has not won support from key organizations — namely the Arab League and NATO — that could provide legitimacy. The league, in a statement, did charge the Syrian government with chemical weapons use, but its member states like Saudi Arabia, a top funder of the anti-Assad rebels, declined to support the use of force publicly.
Without broad international backing, a military strike by the United States; France and Britain, two former colonial powers; and Turkey could well give Mr. Assad a propaganda advantage.
There is also no sign that the White House will ask Congress to authorize military action, which seems to put Mr. Obama at odds with his own past statements about the limits of presidential war powers. House Speaker John Boehner sent Mr. Obama a trenchant letter on Wednesday, asking more than a dozen critical questions, including whether the administration had contingency plans in case foreign powers, especially Iran and Russia, were implicated in the chemical attacks and how the administration planned to pay for the military action.
Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain also ran into domestic pressure that forced him to push back a quick vote in Parliament to support military action.
Mr. Obama has yet to make clear how military strikes — which officials say will last one to two days and target military units that carried out chemical attacks, the headquarters overseeing the effort and the artillery that have launched the attacks — will actually deter chemical attacks without further inflaming a region in turmoil and miring the United States in the Syrian civil war.
Any action, military or otherwise, must be tailored to advance a political settlement between the Assad regime and the opposition, the only rational solution to the conflict. If military action has a broader strategic purpose and is part of a coherent diplomatic plan, Mr. Obama needs to explain it.
