The chemical weapons disarmament plan agreed to over the weekend by Russia and the United States could achieve far more than a military strike would have. It would actually remove the weapons from Syria and destroy all the infrastructure used to produce and deliver these weapons.
For this to actually happen, both Syria and Russia must believe the United States is prepared to strike Syria’s military machine hard enough to change the momentum in the civil war. It is that fear that brought them to the negotiating table.
Here’s the problem: Both President Obama and Congress have made it clear they are reluctant warriors in the Mideast.
The reluctance is understandable. Most Americans feel burned by the Iraq experience and oppose a military strike that could draw us into Syria’s quagmire. The rebels fighting Assad include jihadists allied with al Qaeda, and there is a risk they could take power if President Bashar Assad falls. As the columnist Thomas Friedman says, Americans would be more willing to fight a Hitler in the Arab world if we could find an ally like Churchill to support.
The risk now is that Russia and Syria will dupe the United States into a fruitless diplomatic dance while Assad goes on murdering Syrians with conventional weapons.
The early signs are not encouraging. Assad is demanding we renounce the use of force and stop all aid to the rebels. In other words, he wants to be rewarded for the murder of 1,400 people using chemical weapons he has always denied he had.
The stakes go far beyond Syria. If the United States appears divided and too exhausted to act with strategic resolve, Iran will feel less pressure to give up its nuclear arms program.
So don’t dismiss the possibility of a military strike. To rattle our saber and then put it back into its sheath would increase the chance of war in the long run.