America’s Syrian Chemical Weapons Issue

Should we or shouldn’t we? This has been the essential quality of the style and context of the questions that have permeated the political, national and global debate about American intervention in Syria over their use of chemical weapons. When the politicians, diplomats and experts of various arenas confronted these questions not surprisingly they tended to fall into one of three Venn-diagram regions: “must“ intervene, “mustn’t” intervene and the “this needs to be an international (United Nations) responsibility”. I don’t envy those drawn into, forced into or just finding themselves caught-up in the issue because it is not a simple, trivial or inconsequential issue. But perhaps the issue and the debates that have and still continue to be churned over on this question reveal a characteristic defect in how such questions are handled in our national and political debates and by our political, governmental and media organizations.

The defect is, to paraphrase, in the details. What after all is the question being presented to America for an answer? I won’t presume that my following attempt is ‘the’ quintessential and be-all and end-all proper formulation of the question; but I hope it provides a slight illumination on what American’s should expect and demand from those who serve as our representatives in the debates, discussions and information dissemination (the media). The question that the use of chemical weapons in Syria has birthed is:

What are America’s responsibilities and interests that should define and direct how the United States should respond to the circumstance that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against it own population; and given those responsibilities and interests what course of action is it prudent and appropriate for the United States to take?

A central tenant of this question is that it is incumbent upon those engaged in the discussion of this issue to present the dimensions/factors that define the context that the issue exists within. I do not think that the question is simply that the President of the United States warned Syria not to use chemical weapons against its people and thereby ‘drawing a red-line’ on the issue. This may be a minor issue, and an insubstantial one even if considered, when seeking to understand the question and the problem that America must solve. If you think back upon what you have seen and heard about the issue, do you think that our politicians, government officials, media, or the experts have attempted let alone done?

Shouldn’t the public and their representatives have demonstrated that they have considered the question fully and from all the perspectives that we would think relevant? If this is what we expect and depend upon our leaders to do, don’t you have a problem with where we are on the question today?

Consider which of the following dimensions have been prudently and reasonably discussed:

·         The US being a signatory to a chemical weapons ban

·         The US being a member nation of the UN

·         Whether the massive number of deaths in Syria by non-chemical means is relevant

·         The impact and risks that the Syrian civil-war has and is having on other nations in the region

·         The long-term implications to US interests and influence in the Middle-East or even throughout the world

·         American’s being war-weary

·         What the immediate and the long-term goals and policies are

·         What are the consequences to US relations to other nations both in the region and elsewhere in the world for doing nothing, for intervening

·         Whether there are alternatives that aren’t being considered just because no one is considering and ensuring that the question is being thoroughly assessed and comprehended

·         You can add your own dimensions that I have indicated here …

So the Syrian issue is more than just the chemical weapons point, it’s just that the imprudent decision by the Syrian government to use them has created a global issue that the United States must confront in with some well thought out strategy and policy or accept that it is better to accept America’s decline as a world power which will bring with it it’s own consequences. There is no guarantee that there is a clean, easy, risk-free or desirable course of action or in-action. The only reality that the public should be assured of is that everything you do (or don’t do) has consequences. If you haven’t learned this life lesson, whether you are young or old, you cannot avoid the “laws of physics” that are at play in this as in every issue.