Expert: President’s speech makes case for action in Syria
An international relations expert at the University of Indianapolis says Syria’s apparent use and admitted possession of chemical weapons require a clear response from the United States, especially if no broader international effort takes shape.
Milind Thakar, Ph.D., is an associate professor of International Relations at UIndy and associate director of its Institute for the Study of War and Diplomacy. He is available for interview on this and related topics. To schedule, contact Scott Hall at UIndy media relations, (317) 371-5240.
Dr. Thakar’s thoughts are as follows:
President Obama’s speech succinctly captured the problem and necessity of a response in the case of Syria. The egregious nature of the conflict there, with the use of chemical weapons against civilians, requires action, if nothing else to deter similar future attacks. The opposition of Russia and other states in allowing a truly international response, as well as the unwillingness of other U.S. allies to join in a military response, does not address the question of deterring the Assad regime from targeting civilians engaged in a struggle for regime change.
The regime’s admission of possessing chemical weapons – by agreeing to discuss relinquishing them – underlines the efficacy of the U.S. military threat. Obama’s decision to postpone the Congressional vote on a military strike demonstrates the administration’s interest in a peaceful solution, if the promises to give up chemical weapons are kept.
For the U.S., this has been a difficult choice. War weariness over Iraq and Afghanistan has worked against making a unilateral strike, in a clear case where a government has acted violently against a popular uprising. Similar attempts in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya met with either internal reluctance to use force against popular will, or internationally acceptable use of force against a recalcitrant regime. This is not the case with Syria, where the Assad regime has refused to accommodate its foes and crucial Russian and Chinese vetoes at the U.N. have allowed the conflict to claim hundreds of thousands of lives and create millions of refugees.
Finally, should the Russian proposal to secure Syria’s chemical weapons fail, unilateral U.S. action will serve a purpose. The U.N. cannot act without Russian and Chinese acquiescence, and other great powers appear loath to assist the U.S. in a strike. The international community’s failure to censure a barbaric regime will set a bad precedent. Syria is not Iraq, where no clear popular rebellion threatened Saddam Hussein at the time of U.S. invasion. If ever military strikes had a good purpose and time, this is it.
Milind Thakar, Ph.D., is an associate professor of International Relations at UIndy and associate director of its Institute for the Study of War and Diplomacy. He is available for interview on this and related topics. To schedule, contact Scott Hall at UIndy media relations, (317) 371-5240.
RSS