Syria: What’s going on?

The use of chemical weapons is one of the most egregious crimes under the Geneva Conventions. That being said, when it comes to Syria’s purported use of chemical weapons (Sarin) on its own people, the United States cannot be charged with the responsibility of stopping Bashar Al-Assad – especially not unilaterally. By deferring the decision on military engagement to Congress, President Obama has made the right choice. And, hopefully, Congress will go against the President’s desire for intervention and vote “no” to war.

A little background. For years, the United States maintained diplomatic relations with Syria under the same pretext we use for determining many other friends in the Middle East: “The devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know.” It is no secret that Syria, a country drawn on artificial borders designed by European colonial powers, and under the rule of the minority Alawite sect, could eventually disintegrate. When protests broke out in the streets of Syria in reaction to the Arab Spring in early 2011, the Assad government attempted to quell the dissent, but instead inflamed a volatile situation leaving us where we are today: a bloody civil war with over 110,000 civilians dead.

The United States has been monitoring the events in Syria as it considers the appropriate course of action. One of the central fears about the Syria conflict is what it means for the region. The nuclear ambitions of Iran are real (despite a recent change in leadership) and the Iranian ties to the Syrian regime must be considered in terms of retaliatory attacks against the U.S., or our three key regional allies Israel, Turkey and Jordan (all of which border Syria). Additionally, the U.S. relationship with Russia has been strained for many months, both by the granting of asylum to NSA leaker Edward Snowden and Russia’s anti-LGBT laws. But traditional states (countries) are not the only actors in this game; groups like Hezbollah, with ties to the Assad regime, could also act against American interests should we strike.

So why strike? Aside of course from the moral reasons of a use of chemical weapons against innocent people, especially women and children, you may hear talk of a red line. In an August 2012 remark regarding chemical weapons use, President Obama declared “We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that’s a red line for us.”

President Obama’s unfortunate drawing of a red line in Syria has led to both Obama critics and war proponents talking about how the United States must strike inside Syria. If not, they warn, the United States will lose its international credibility. I disagree. American credibility is risked when we overestimate our power leading into misguided military engagements (see Iraq). Here are four reasons why Syrian intervention is a “misguided military engagement”:

The United States has never had a foreign policy rooted in humanitarianism. If that were the case, we would have entered Darfur during the genocide. We would not have propped up Hosni Mubarrak and his police state in Egypt for 30 years. And we would not have such close ties to the Saudi monarchy, which violates countless human rights. Our foreign policy is rooted in stability and maintaining our national interests, none of which lie in Syria. Whereas the Russians are actively supporting the Syrian regime with military and monetary resources, the United States should be sitting out a war that does not align with U.S. interests instead of providing arms to the Syrian Rebel Army. In the past, simply arming rebel armies has not always worked out the way we planned (See: Taliban or the Iran/Iraq War).

Syria and Iran are not as closely related as some want you to believe. War proponents ask about the message we are sending to Iran as they strive to develop a nuclear weapon. While Syria and Iran maintain close relations, a failure to act in Syria does not mean the United States would not act against Iran. I would argue that the cases of Iran and Syria are dissimilar; Iran’s nuclear ambitions directly threaten our firmest ally, Israel, and stability in the Middle East. A civil war in Syria does not.

(For more on this read Jeffery Goldberg’s article from Bloomberg View here)

Thirdly, if the United States wants to win a “War on Terror,” it cannot continually engage Muslim nations in military conflict and expect to destroy an ideology. As Al-Qaeda and other groups have splintered and grown throughout the region, ours wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us that radical Islam cannot be defeated by military force. Intervention in Syria will very likely have unintended consequences, such as innocent Muslims killed by the United States; these consequences, we cannot afford.

Lastly, vague statements about a war effort, like “limited strikes” and “shots across the bow” leave too many questions unanswered. Remember the trust placed in the hands of the Bush Administration that said in 2003 intervention in Iraq would take just a few weeks? In Syria, what happens if Assad retaliates; do we stay longer? What happens if Assad strikes Israel, Jordan, or Turkey (three bordering nations and strong U.S. allies)? Do we put boots on the ground? How do we define success? Senators like John McCain and Lindsey Graham say they will support the action if the president defines more of a plan and strategy. Shouldn’t more lawmakers want to see that too? For every action, there is a reaction. If we only plan for Part A (a limited strike) but don’t have a long term strategy that takes into account the reaction to our action, doesn’t that seem short-sighted?

Limited strikes by the United States are not going to stop the killing going on Syria; they will not help fill the looming power vacuum; and they will not deter perverse human beings from using chemical weapons. Launching missiles to send an inevitably ineffectual message is a losing cause.

Check out where lawmakers stand with this great chart from The Washington Post.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has approved wording for a bill to be voted on. It allows for limited military action for 90 days, with no boots on the ground.  If the committee passes the bill, the bill then moves to Senate floor, where some debate will continue.

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not reflect the views of Sweet Lemon Media.

 By Brandon Faske