Whether you favor or oppose any kind of military action by the US against Syria in reaction to the Syrian government's evident use of internationally banned chemical weapons that killed more than a thousand innocent children and adults, here's a bigger issue: Why is the US debate on this issue so muddled and confused?
One word: Bush. And three more words: The Republican Party.
Conservative Republicans and progressive Democrats are among lawmakers skeptical of or in outright opposition to President Obama's proposal to stage some kind of limited attack on Syria as a warning against the horrific gassing of innocent civilians. That skepticism regarding a particular, proposed action is commendable.
It's likewise commendable that Obama, the commander in chief, backed away from any unilateral military order when members of Congress insisted he had to get their approval beforehand, notwithstanding recent reinterpretation of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 as employed by George W. Bush and other presidents -- namely, that "terrorist" activity in other countries is sufficient grounds to act without Congressional approval.
Arguably, Obama demonstrated strength, reserve, and a cooperative spirit when he (ahem) called the bluff of lawmakers who insisted he come to them. Now, of course, some of those same lawmakers are loathe to vote, recording their up-or-down choice in front of voters, whom, polls show, really aren't thrilled about attacking Syria. So now comes the state of confusion, emanating in part from the usual Republican flaw: Party members know what they don't like, but can't decide on what they do like, excepting, of course, tax cuts.
Now, it's a very good thing to have a highly visible, extended teaching moment on the use of and limits of US military power, along with a vigorous debate on the wisdom behind all such use, and perhaps even a revisiting of the War Powers Resolution that inadvertently has flipped its purpose, giving greatly expanded power to presidents at the expense of Congress.
Of course, we wouldn't be in this extended hiatus (which probably dooms any military action, absent a highly unlikely UN Security Council approval) if it hadn't been for the Bush administration's complete dismantling of government credibility -- an unintended consequence of his authoritarian style and grandiose rhetoric. The successful call from Bush and his "vulcans" to invade Iraq based entirely on manufactured claims, later disproved, of Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction," cowing Congress into submission in the process, has brought us to the point where lawmakers and citizens alike are highly skeptical of any similar claims from Obama and perhaps future presidents, no matter how well documented the case.
This kind of skepticism is good news in the short run but potentially bad news in the long run. Of course, US military power should be carefully restrained and used only when there is no other option and when US interests (not corporate-by-proxy interests, but legitimate national security interests) are at stake. But a good deal of the restraint now counseled in the halls of Congress is a function of the GOP's undisguised continuation of its informal Obama doctrine -- namely, that if Obama is for it, it must be bad and the GOP will oppose. It's not, after all, as if the GOP plans to restrain future presidents, especially Republican ones, although their current rhetoric is intended to suggest otherwise.
It's great that conservative isolationists are now rethinking Bush imperialism out loud, if very, very softly while projecting Bush's flaws onto Obama. However, absent more lasting, substantive action -- like a revitalized War Powers Resolution -- the current dust-up will solve a current issue but do nothing to serve the future and our need for wiser, more prudent America, which would be good for the entire planet.
More below the orange chemical-warfare cloud.
One particularly bald example of conservative posturing was served up this week by right-wing syndicated columnist Cal Thomas. He penned a richly hypocritical screed claiming that Obama's retreat from launching an attack (which, you'll recall, Obama previously said he hadn't decided to order) was a sign of the president's weakness and confused foreign policy. Of course Thomas had no such reservations when Bush and Cheney led us straight into a totally unnecessary war based on flimsy evidence. Straight ahead into total chaos apparently is better than muddling through to consensus. More exciting, at any rate.
In any event, it's not clear guys like Thomas would ever do a similar 180 degree turn and decide we have no need to attack Iran, either, based on that country's nuclear program (don't get me wrong; that proposed attack would be bad, too; we're just talking Republican situational ethics, here).
Indeed, some right-wing hawks have tried to portray the Syria problem as an outgrowth of unresolved although imaginary claims made by Bush about Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction." The story line: Before he was defeated, Saddam Hussein made a secret deal with Assad and transported all of Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction," including chemical weapons, across the border to Syria.
Never mind that international inspectors find this conspiracy theory totally ridiculous. It gives hawks a lever to suggest we need to finish the war against Iraq -- although not by attacking Syria (where all those chemical weapons now are, according to some of them) but instead by attacking Iran. So very logical, don't you think? At least, the Syria debate offers hope that right-wing vulcans (aided, perhaps, by politically cowed Democrats) will ever be able to mount sufficient public opinion to actually do it, given current public opinion.
Meanwhile Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wisconsin) summed up the two-headed creature that is now the Republican Party when he told Wisconsin Public Radio http://news.wpr.org/... that he'd oppose any military strike on Syria. Sounds good on the surface, and serves the interest of many progressives, but listen to the congressman's broader reasoning, here, which uses normative international political constraints (China, Russia) to justify what seems a wholly situational stance:
[Duffy] says President Barack Obama shouldn’t “be playing” in the Middle East, and he opposes a military strike against Syria.
Duffy says he would listen to Obama’s arguments for a strike, which the president says is needed to punish Syria for using chemical weapons against civilians last month. U.S. investigators say more than 1,400 people were killed. But Duffy says no good can come of a military strike... .
Even so, Duffy admits it’s hard to ignore a chemical weapons attack.
“There’s a pretty consistent global theme that we don’t want to have chemical weapons used on civilian populations or on any populations,” says Duffy. “But then I’d say ‘Well, where are the Russians? Where are the Chinese? Where’s Europe?’”
He says the new Republican block in the House is united, even if members of the old guard like John McCain and John Boehner support Obama’s plan... .
Obama has ruled out using troops in an attack. Duffy says although he opposes Obama’s plan, he says House Republicans do not have an alternative strategy now.
So Obama "plays" in the Mideast, which is bad, but what about the Bush administration, which played in the Mideast ever so much more, while playing US voters for suckers? Duffy plays a quasi-pacifist here, but one senses he's a closet hawk, uncertain what to do but reading the polls with an eye on his upcoming reelection campaign.
In Duffy's meanderings can be seen the dilemma of the Republican Party as a whole. It sort of goes like this (I state the GOP case more baldly): Yes, Syria has done very bad things. But unlike our past and continuing military actions in the rest of the Mideast, we should not, as we did under the Bush regime, use any military force against Syria, however limited. Because that would just cause blow-back. Terrorists don't respect such action, which is why our actions were so very, very effective in the past. Or something.
Anyway, Obama is just "playing" around. Better to do nothing further, until we decide we should -- no, must -- do something, if we can ever figure out what that something might be. Bombing Iran is still on the table, of course. And just look out if someone attacks another of our embassies, which (need we stipulate) is almost guaranteed. Hoo, boy. Having another Republican hawk in the White House sure would help sort all this out.
Like I said, if Obama is for it, the GOP will be against it. After Congress sits this one out and (as I would expect) Obama then concedes there is no consensus or even overt approval by vote for a military action, his next step likely will be to come up with non-military, diplomatic, legal or economic alternatives. In which case I further expect the GOP will oppose those measures, too, probably on the now-routine basis that they'll do no good and once again demonstrate Obama's inability to find a solution to a problem the GOP refuses to help address -- at least, not as long as Obama is commander in chief.