The Presidents decision to await Congresss approval before launching an attack on Syria is prudent. But if Congress approves hes in an even tighter spot than he was before: He has no choice but to attack. And he thereby establishes a new precedent for American foreign policy even broader than that claimed by George W. Bush: Even when we cant get the support of the United Nations Security Council, even when our NATO partners wont join us, and even when our staunchest ally Great Britain is opposed -- we still have the right to take unilateral military action against a sovereign state that has not attacked another sovereign state whenever the president can get the backing of the U.S. Congress. Again, lets be clear: What Assad appears to have done is atrocious. It would be useful to respond in some manner that raises the costs of using poison gas. But there are ways of doing so, short of military action. One such step would be to freeze the assets of Assad and Syrias elite, refusing to do business with any bank that wont cooperate. The British government and our other allies would likely join us. In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis we now have greater capacity to oversee international financial flows. Moreover, we have had significant success stopping assets flowing to and from terrorist organizations, as well as North Korea. Why not at least try these and other economic sanctions before we launch missiles -- and thereby begin a chain of violence whose end we cannot possibly foresee?
Posted on: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 22:26:08 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015