Think of the last time you got sloppy in Tigerland: you thought you knew exactly what you were doing — you were only going to take a few shots and go home. You woke up the next day filled with shame, regret and a pounding headache.
The United States is on the verge of making one of those decisions in Syria, and the Obama administration needs to rethink its present course before it rolls over and finds al-Qaeda trying to cuddle and asking if it wants breakfast.
There needs to be absolutely no military intervention in Syria.
As of Tuesday morning, President Obama received the go-ahead for a limited military strike against the forces of President Bashar Assad from the leadership of both parties in the House of Representatives.
This could potentially lead to a vote in the Senate on whether or not force will be authorized in the conflict. However, despite what the bipartisan leadership may say, there is an overpowering cry of opposition to any use of force by the American public.
Fifty percent of Americans oppose any use of force in Syria, with only 42 percent in favor of limited strikes.
Fifty percent of Americans haven’t been united on much in quite some time. However, this is unsurprising, given that most Americans understand that this conflict is about more than just Assad using sarin gas against his own people. We don’t want to get involved in another country’s civil war.
In the course of two years, four distinct factions and multiple other splinter groups have formed in Syria. They consist of President Assad’s loyalist forces, the main opposition group, the Free Syrian Army and al-Qaeda backed Islamists who are trying to create a power base within the FSA.
Lastly, there is a Kurdish minority, which is trying to carve its own territory out of the chaos. The Kurds’ tentative nation is referred to as Rojava.
With so many factions divided along political, religious and ethnic lines, what is on the ground can best be described as a free-for-all, the prize being the bombed ruin that was once Syria.
The obvious proxy for the U.S. would be the FSA, but there is a real and significant risk of inadvertently aiding and abetting al-Qaeda, which we have been fighting non-stop for the past 12 years.
The other option would be the Kurdish separatist movement, as they have stated openly that they are fighting the war on terror for the U.S. in Syria. This is true — if the Islamists were to beat out Assad’s loyalists, the Kurds would be at the top of the hit list. However, backing them would be highly unpopular with our ally Turkey, because there is a significant Kurdish population there, and the government in Ankara fears it will try to do the same.
Even if there were a side to realistically support, we would only be lobbing a few cruise missiles into Syria with this punitive action, and since we have completely forgone the element of surprise, there is little doubt Assad is moving around his most important assets so they don’t get blown to kingdom come. The chance of having any significant impact is slim.
On top of that, there is a chance that in the event of an attack, Assad would retaliate against Israel through chemical or other means. If even one tablespoon of sarin were to hit Israeli airspace, we would learn just how quickly the Israeli Defense Force could turn Damascus into a parking lot.
Best case, we lob a few missiles into Syria, pat ourselves on the back and leave the situation largely unresolved.
Worst case scenario, we push ourselves into the conflict and ignite a major regional war.
Normally, in the case of foreign policy and military affairs, the American people should defer to the judgment and experience of experts at the State Department and the Pentagon. However, in the case of Syria, the president and Congress should, for once, listen to the American people, and elect to keep our military out of Syria.