EDITORIAL: Obama, U.S. in no-win situation in Syria
President Barack Obama's "red line" in regards to chemical weapons use in Syria has been crossed, and the United States has been backed into a corner with no easy solution.
About two years ago, when the brutal civil war between the Syrian government and rebel forces was just beginning, Obama rejected calls for U.S. intervention unless Syrian President Bashar al-Assad approved the use of chemical weapons against its own people.
That's apparently what happened on Aug. 21, when the Syrian government, according to U.S. and British intelligence investigations, used deadly sarin gas in a suburb of Damascus, the nation's capital.
Obama's "red line" rhetoric has seemingly pushed the U.S. to the brink of military action, and the American public, fed up with more than a decade of war in the Middle East, is not too happy about it. A Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted late last week found just 36 percent of Americans support military action in Syria, while 59 percent oppose it.
It's a tough sell for Obama, who has seen his popularity decline over the past several months, so perhaps it's no wonder why he decided to ask a laughably unpopular Congress for approval before launching air strikes on the Syrian regime.
While it is refreshing to see a president, especially one who ran on reining in presidential power, seek congressional approval before a military strike, even this move might backfire on the president and the U.S.
In the GOP-led House, most liberal Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans are staunchly opposed to any sort of military action in Syria, making approval look highly unlikely at best or like a lost cause at worst.
That leaves Obama and the U.S. in an unenviable position. On one hand, doing nothing risks ruining America's reputation abroad. Nations such as Iran and North Korea, not to mention Syria itself, might feel emboldened to ignore the U.S.' warnings against the use of chemical weapons or the construction of nuclear weapons. That, in turn, could lure the U.S. into future conflicts with those nations. It also risks making America look untrustworthy to its allies and would entangle the nation in yet another war, this time with very little help.
On the other hand, striking Syria without congressional approval would make Obama look like a liar and a hypocrite, risking revolt in Congress, even among his fellow Democrats, and further trouble in advancing any sort of legislation or avoiding potential budget battles.
And even if the president somehow got the go-ahead from Congress, the U.S. stands little to gain from intervention. While America would send a message against the use of chemical weapons, what else would it accomplish? Most experts have said limited air strikes would do nothing to get Assad out of power, and it might actually complicate things for the rebels.
Not only that, but the U.S. would put further strains on its relationships with Russia and China, both of which have come out against any military strikes. While wild predictions of a World War III scenario breaking loose are absurd, the last things America needs in foreign relations right now are increasingly leery relationships with nations already suspicious of it.
This is an incredibly complex situation, and there are no easy answers or ideal solutions. But it would be wise to avoid conflict, especially since there is no direct threat to the United States.
As students who have grown up in an America in a state of near-perpetual war, we have grown sick of constantly engaging ourselves militarily overseas. And since the U.S. has little to gain and a lot to lose, there should be no reason for Obama and his loose coalition of moderate Democrats and neoconservative Republicans to aggressively push for yet another conflict.
