The Syrian Stump

When addressing the issues with Syria, it is difficult to be firm with one side of the conflict. President Obama's plead to Congress and the American public urges a unilateral military strike on Syria for its use of chemical weapons. This action, he justifies, is necessary to maintain US credibility and oppose the use of chemical weapons. As the world police, the US does have a commitment to global citizens to protect their natural rights. However, President Obama needs to get Congressional support, at the very least. If I were a congresswoman, I would vote against the strikes, though, on the grounds that they are not a national security measure. Our definition of foreign policy outlines that actions must be taken to protect US citizens from imminent danger. In this case, we have neither a direct threat nor the backing of the international community. In addition, international law is hazy in terms of the legality of the strike because, as Walter Dellinger stated, the proposed attack is not "covered by any of the previous precedents for the unilateral use of executive power." Because of this, I think it's a smart move Obama is making. He is seeking congressional support on the matter. He is slowly gaining some support and ground as it was released Sunday that there was "Saudi backing for a strike, even as the Syrian president warned he would retaliate." Ultimately, I do not believe that Congress will approve the strike. Though it has good intentions, it is playing on shaky grounds and risks causing international retaliation. Not only does the president not have the backing of the international community, he also does not have the support of the American people, making the strikes unjustified and an extension of his powers.