President Obama said among others on Friday:
... I'm comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nationsand
Security Council that, so far, has been completely paralyzed and unwilling
to hold Assad accountable. ..."
"I don't expect every nation to agree with the decision we have made. ..."
I'm also mindful that I'm the President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. I've long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that's why I've made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress.If he doesn't expect any other nation to agree with the decision the US made, why would he use the "paralysis and unwillingness of the UN" as an argument to disregard their decisions when in the other sentence he says he doesn't expect them to agree.
The disagreement of other nations is reflected in the UN Security Council, so no need to say the UN is paralyzed and unwilling.
Is the US Congress any less paralyzed and unwilling to hold anybody accountable for anything but other nation's leaders than the UN Security Council is paralyzed and unwilling? holding the US, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom accountable?
Maybe, just maybe both representational political bodies, the UN and US Congress, would be less paralyzed, if they actually would give each participating member equal weight in each members vote and actually decide something democratically? The deadlock in both is equally failing its constituents.
Where is the logic in this proposed text of the Congressional Resolution to authorize use of force against Syria:
Whereas, on August 21, 2013, the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus, Syria, killing more than 1,000 innocent Syrians;In a.) it's not proven that the US objective to deter, disrupt, prevent, and degrade the potential for, future uses of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, can be met. All previous examples have proven it to be not achievable.
Whereas these flagrant actions were in violation of international norms and the laws of war;
Whereas the United States and 188 other countries comprising 98 percent of the world's population are parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling or use of chemical weapons;
Whereas, in the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, Congress found that Syria's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction threatens the security of the Middle East and the national security interests of the United States;
Whereas the United Nations Security Council, in Resolution 1540 (2004), affirmed that the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons constitutes a threat to international peace and security;
a. Whereas, the objective of the United States' use of military force in connection with this authorization should be to deter, disrupt, prevent, and degrade the potential for, future uses of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction;
b. Whereas, the conflict in Syria will only be resolved through a negotiated political settlement, and Congress calls on all parties to the conflict in Syria to participate urgently and constructively in the Geneva process; and
Whereas, unified action by the legislative and executive branches will send a clear signal of American resolve.
In b.) they admit that the conflict in Syria will be resolved only by negotiated political settlement.
In order to get all parties to negotiate a political settlement, it is of course best to first bomb and destroy the heck out Syria to then winning the (broken) hearts and (tortured) minds to incite a "happy" willingness to negotiate for a settlement, right?