There is a lot of sentiment in Congress and on here calling into question the reason we would take military action against Syria. I am going to go through the reasons we should consider supporting Obama here -
They fall into 3 categories -
1. Moral
2. Geopolitical
3. Political (domestic)
#3 should not really be a consideration, but let's examine the ramifications anyway. Below the fold.
First, a good read on Syria:
The military options are all bad. Shipping arms to rebels, even if it helps them topple Assad, would ultimately empower jihadists and worsen rebel in-fighting, probably leading to lots of chaos and possibly a second civil war (the United States made this mistake during Afghanistan’s 1980s civil war, which helped the Taliban take power in the 1990s). Taking out Assad somehow would probably do the same, opening up a dangerous power vacuum. Launching air strikes or a “no fly zone” could suck us in, possibly for years, and probably wouldn’t make much difference on the ground. An Iraq-style ground invasion would, in the very best outcome, accelerate the the killing, cost a lot of U.S. lives, wildly exacerbate anti-Americanism in a boon to jihadists and nationalist dictators alike, and would require the United States to impose order for years across a country full of people trying to kill each other. Nope.
So why support Obama on this?
1) Moral
Chemical weapons are essentially weapons of terror. I know Kos believes differently, but it does matter how your death is delivered. Because the only purpose of a chemical weapon is to kill whoever makes the mistake of breathing in its vicinity. You can't run/hide from a chemical weapon. We have an incentive to say to any nation that uses chemical weapons that they will hear from us - that the cost of using these is critical airstrikes taking out other warfare capabilities. It should not be worth it for anyone to use these weapons. Likewise...
Incentives to use these weapons inevitably allows them to slip into the hands of the real terrorists.
2) Geopolitical
Obama has no good options here. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't in the world's eyes. If he doesn't, he does look weak, and that does matter as much as we don't want it to. He has to own this because he did say if they use these weapons we'll retaliate - in other words, that ship has sailed, and we have to live up to our initial statement. To fail to do so would encourage others.
3) Political (domestic)
Dear Republicans,
This is how you go to war. You show undeniable evidence (which we have) and proof of the use of chemical weapons or WMDs. Not a single Republican or Democrat who voted for Iraq can say squat about Syria.
I would also note that if Obama doesn't act, he'll be painted as weak politically.
So I'm, one more time, giving Obama the benefit of the doubt and supporting him on this one.
I will add that getting Congress to say Yes would be nice political cover for Obama.