Obama's best option on Syria is to listen to Congress
I credit the president for heeding calls for Congress to debate Syria. Now, I hope he hears our alternatives to military action
Email
Barack Obama listens intently during the G20 meeting of world leaders. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images
As Congress reconvenes this week, one issue is at the forefront of our minds: Syria.
The world community has compelling evidence that the Bashar al-Assadregime used chemical weapons against its own people. This is deplorable and unacceptable, and he and others responsible must be held accountable under the law; we must respond. But I reject the view that a military response will be effective or appropriate.
Last week, 60 House members joined me in a letter calling for the president to submit this matter for congressional debate. Congress has the constitutional authority to take the nation to war, and I commend President Obama for heading that and other calls to abide by the US constitution's separation of powers. We will have a robust and serious debate about any response; and we will weigh the probable and dangerous consequences of a military strike.
Military action, including targeted bombing, risks losing more lives and increasing the bloodshed. It could undermine our national security, and that of close allies, by triggering broad retaliation and escalation of the conflict in the region. The danger of the violence escalating in Syria and in the region is high; we cannot put out a fire by adding gasoline to the flames.
Strikes against Syrian military targets not only have the risk of direct civilian casualties – sometimes, in war, callously called "collateral damage" – but will not deter the Assad regime from its continued assault against his own people. Many experts agree that these strikes would do more harm than good, and could lead the US deeper and deeper into the complex Syrian civil war, which 60% of Americans oppose. The path forward is clear: we must support forceful diplomacy, not military force.
We have alternatives. While these alternatives may not offer an easy solution or a "silver bullet", they ultimately may prove more effective in addressing this issue and, importantly, in sending a clear signal that leaders may not act against international law with impunity.
We've got to engage in forceful diplomacy to mobilize the community of nations to demand legal action against Syrian leaders for their horrific violation of international law. We must mobilize the international community to work to advance a negotiated settlement of the political conflict within Syria, which has led to these international crimes and threatens the peace and stability of the region.
While we work towards a negotiated settlement, I agree with the European Union that we should wait for the United Nations weapons inspectors to release their report. There are several other options that we should be pursing, such as: working with the United Nations and the international community to seek multilateral sanctions; investigate and prosecute for crimes against humanity; and engage the International Criminal Court.
All the signers of the Chemical Weapons Convention could be called for their input on how to move forward. We could pursue an international agreement that can compel Syria to allow humanitarian aid to make its way to the hundreds of thousands civilians, maybe millions, who need it.
Furthermore, we could work with the international community to establish a Syrian war crimes tribunal. And we should pressure all internal and external parties to engage in the Geneva process of negotiation, along with the Arab League of States and the Organization for Islamic Co-operation.
These options, and others, will be laid out in a resolution that I will introduce as the debate in Congress begins. The perceived difficulties of non-military options should not mean that the United States and the international community should abandon hope of bringing perpetrators to justice or pressuring the Assad regime and all actors to accept a negotiated political solution.
Not only is this the right thing to do, but the American people are demanding it.
