Military strikes in Syria: Five reasons Americans are wary

Opposition to US use of military force in Syria does not break down along partisan lines. Here are five top reasons Americans are wary of US military strikes in Syria.

2. Unintended consequences

Carolyn Kaster/AP
Protesters against US military action in Syria march to Capitol Hill from the White House on Sept. 7. President Barack Obama has asked Congress to approve the use of force. A final vote in the U.S. Senate is expected at the end of the coming week. A House vote is likely in the week of Sept. 16.

What if a US strike not only fails to deter the Assad regime from future use of chemical weapons, but also makes things worse, such as provoking attacks on Israel or Turkey or empowering extremist elements of the Syrian opposition more hostile to US interests than the current regime?

If the US were to launch strikes against Syria, Assad could respond with reprisals against his own people or attacks against US allies in the region. Allies such as Iran or Hezbollah also could launch their own reprisals, say lawmakers on Capitol Hill, citing the responses they're getting from constituents.

"What happens if this thing gets away from us?" said Sen. Jim Risch (R) of Idaho, noting the prospect that Hezbollah in Lebanon could launch a counterstrike against Israel. "What happens if they get into it with Israel? What's our response to that going to be?"

The president and top administration spokesmen insist that, even in such a case, the US has options and can respond effectively without going to war.

"If [Assad] is foolish enough to respond to the world's enforcement against his criminal activity, if he does, he will invite something fare worse, and I believe, something absolutely unsustainable for him," said Secretary of State John Kerry at a Sept. 3 hearing. "That doesn't mean the United States of America is going to war, as I said in my comments. There are plenty of options here."

In response, Sen. Chris Murphy (D) of Connecticut credited the Obama administration with having made a convincing case that atrocities had been committed in Syria but questioned whether Americans still believed that US military power could lessen that "moral atrocity" or advance US national interests in the region.

"And clearly, though there is not some direct linkage between what happened in Iraq and what happened in Syria, it does chill the ability of people to believe that American military might can influence politics on the ground in Syria after they have watched the last 10 years," he added.

Members of Congress say that their e-mail and letters, citing such concerns, are running strongly against the war.

"We get calls by the thousands: Nobody's calling in favor of this war," says Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky, a likely 2016 presidential contender. "We all agree that chemical attacks are a horrendous thing. But people are not excited about getting involved, and they also don't think it's going to work. And they're skeptical of what will occur with this."

On Sept. 5, the State Department issued a travel alert to Iraq, noting that terrorist activity is "at levels unseen since 2008." On Sept. 6, Turkey and Lebanon were added to the travel alert list.

2 of 5

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.