Obama’s Syrian time out

Is there such a thing as a good war or a bad peace?

Twelve years ago, Americans awoke to the horror of mass violence. Sept. 11 was a watershed for the United States and the family of nations. Life before 9/11. Life after.

The challenge for lawmakers is to see the world as it is, a dangerous place. In the United States, values of human rights, of right and wrong, condition the application of power. But power manifests in diplomatic command as much as military authority.

To paraphrase a 20th century theologian, better to be an idealist without illusions than a realist without a conscience.

With Syria, President Obama aspires to be an idealist without illusions. It’s diplomacy with (and this helps) cruise-missile teeth.

“When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory, but these things happened,” the president said in his Tuesday address regarding Syria’s use of chemical weapons. “The facts cannot be denied.”

We need to uphold international norms, the president argued, just as we yearn to stop the bloodshed. The moral line gets crossed — use of chemical weapons against civilians is just cause for a multilateral response — yet military action is morally ambiguous. Innocent people die.

No boots on the ground, the president promised Tuesday. No “prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo.” At the same time, Obama exhibited bravado uncharacteristic of a Nobel Peace Prize winner. “The United States doesn’t do pinpricks,” he said. “Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver.”

The president asked for a delay in a Congressional vote on military action pending a possible resolution, with an enforceable and verifiable relinquishing of Syria’s chemical weapons. That the proposal is shepherded by the Russians is troubling. But the possibility of peace is an all-consuming force.

Writing in Tuesday’s Herald, University of Washington professor Rob Crawford notes, “The laws of war were created in recognition that warring parties use violence without moral restraint.” The value of congressional debate is to hold a mirror to lawmakers and their moral calculus. For strike opponents and supporters alike, the “I’m going to take a poll of my constituents” is recoil-inducing. Public sentiment should inform decision-making, not determine it.

Let Congress use this diplomatic time-out to debate the responsibility to protect, the challenge of humanitarian intervention, and the role of the International Criminal Court. Rather than talking points, lawmakers need to articulate a vision for America’s role in the world. And they need to put it in their own words.

More in Opinion

Editorial: Don’t break the link between tests and graduation

Ending the testing requirement for a high school diploma would be a disservice to all students.

Editorial cartoons for Sunday, Jan. 21

A sketchy look at the day in politics.… Continue reading

Viewpoints: Living with a force of nature we can’t control

California’s landslides — and Oso before it — show the need to map hazards and get out of the way.

Commentary: Flu presents a moving target for yearly vaccine

While the vaccine’s effectiveness can vary year to year, it’s still the best way to avoid influenza.

Commentary: A tip-credit would be more fair than wage hikes

The state’s minimum wage increase is working against many in restaurants. Here’s a better idea.

Editorial cartoons for Saturday, Jan. 20

A sketchy look at the day in politics.… Continue reading

Editorial: Help community colleges meet job training needs

Lost in the focus on K-12 school funding, have been the needs of community and technical colleges.

Will: Our past immigration criteria does not instill pride

By what criteria should we decide who is worthy to come amongst us? Consider our history, first.

Robinson: With no credible president, we are without a leader

It is unwise and impossible to take literally or seriously anything President Trump says.

Most Read