Syria Conflict Reverberates US Foreign Policy
By Jonathan Tomczak
The revelation that the Syrian regime may have used chemical weapons against armed rebels, and possibly civilians, puts the Obama administration in a bind.
If confirmed, this would be a turning point that will dictate not only what happens to the government of Bashar al-Assad, but will possibly set the tone for U.S. relations with countries in the Middle East for another decade.
On the one hand, President Barack Obama has said numerous times that the use of chemical weapons would be a "red line" that would necessitate ... something.
The specific actions of the White House are typically unclear. However, it will obviously have to go beyond the sanctions and diplomatic pressure the U.S. is currently using and might even mean sending in troops.
On the other hand, there is recent history. The intelligence mistakes surrounding Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction have led to a decade of conflict and tens of thousands of U.S. casualties. The fact that there is still no evidence of any weapons of mass destruction has only added insult to injury. However, we don't know what evidence has been found, and it would be a mistake to judge too early. So far, Obama has made it clear he will only act when more conclusive evidence is obtained.
Despite the easy and obvious parallel, the situation in Syria is a far cry from Iraq. Syria is supported, at least in part, by both Russia and China, which are strong nations both in resources and diplomatic power in the U.N. This will make any more direct involvement by the U.S. significantly more complicated than it was to invade Iraq.
The question remains: what to do? There are several options at Obama's disposal. He can work to increase international sanctions, or he can advocate and impose a no-fly zone over Syria to interfere with the regime's air force. He can also establish refugee centers protected by troops. These, unfortunately, come with the risk of losing U.S. troops.
At this point, the best action is nothing. The smart thing would be to wait for possible evidence of chemical weaponry. If these weapons presences do become known, it cannot be a unilateral action, however tempting that might be.
The biggest lesson from Iraq is that only an international effort will have the best long-term result for both Syria and the U.S.'s diplomatic relations. International support for Iraq was tenuous at best. Clearly, the U.S. cannot solve Syria's problems alone.
A vivid memory from my childhood was watching the bombing of Baghdad in my fifth grade classroom. Ten years later and we're just putting an end to a tragic story in our history. We don't need another decade of tumult. Syria requires an international solution, chemical weapons or not.
Jonathan Tomczak is a junior political science and history double major.