US Intervention in Syria:Why Obama Must Wait forthe Opinion of Congress
"The Assad regime must be punished," declared Barack Obama on Saturday, Aug. 31. Nonetheless, the U.S. president wants to wait for the green light from Congress before envisaging any military intervention n Syria. Is his strategy good? — the analysis of Lucien Pambou, [Alfortville] city councillor.
Following his declarations of waging war in the name of morals and respect of human rights, the U.S. president is obliged to re-evaluate his strategy vis-a-vis Syria. Unlike certain authoritarian regimes of Africa, Asia and some Eastern European countries, Western democracies, and especially their representatives, have two superior elements over other regimes — the concepts of negotiation and deliberation.
By asking Congress for its opinion on an eventual U.S. intervention, Obama wants to enter into the history of the world and that of America as a "normal and moral" president. After having criticized Bush and received the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama wants to inaugurate a new American presidency for the future.
End of the American Superpower?
The U.S. is no longer a superpower, according Hubert Védrine's theory. Rather, it is an ordinary power — great of course — with important prerogatives, hoping to live in agreement with the other great powers of the world: China, Russia, and other average powers like France and the United Kingdom. The U.S. wants to act as a model for other countries of the world, which some of them reject — the ones that do not always desire an American presence — Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
With the assistance of its main representative, Vladimir Putin, Russia has developed a distrust of the American attitude. Obama must be present at the G-20 meeting in St. Petersburg at the beginning of September. At this meeting, he should not appear as being the aggressor to a small country — Syria — because Russia, whose geopolitical interests and strategies in the Middle East can be read above all by the role that Syria plays in its political map in this part of the world, could reproach him.
Obama must attend the meeting of Congress, which will take place on Sept. 9. This will weaken the French strategy, and particularly that of President Francois Hollande, who decided to follow the American example on the matter of the intervention in the name of human rights. Mali and the Serval operation are not Syria.
France Will Not Intervene Alone
Since Article 35 of the French constitution allows the French president to disregard an eventual consultation with Parliament, Hollande — for political strategy and French domestic policy reasons — might be obliged to invite the various leaders of French political parties to the Elysée and even initiate a debate in Parliament.
In all ways, the Palace of Elysée is formal. Assuming that Congress says no to Obama, which would result in tying Obama's hands regarding an eventual decision on the matter of an intervention, France would not intervene alone in the region.
Public opinion is heating up in France about the United States, with some objecting to American intervention and others, especially those close to the Syrian opposition or those who sympathize with it, in favor of the intervention. The heart of the matter is relatively easy to present, but the analytical elements are complicated because one cannot punish Bashar al-Assad by dropping bombs on military sites, while doing something to ensure Bashar does not remain president.
Another problem exists that Obama has not mentioned and Hollande has spoken of even less: Bashar's removal could leave a significant vacuum by creating an ethnic-religious war between Sunnis and Shiite, even accelerating the takeover of power by Jihadi Islamists, which neither France nor America, and even less so, Israel, wants.
Dominance of the U.S. and West
American intervention is thus dependent on the decision of Congress, which will meet on Sept. 9. This lapse in time allows Obama to think over political remarks with one of his inevitable and current partners, France, while knowing that their historical partner, the United Kingdom,will not be part of the expedition if approved.
The current world is at an important turning point on how to stabilize for peace, guard geopolitical balances and broaden the market economy. However, not everyone agrees with the market economy and globalization, and some groups — not just Jihadi Islamists — are rejecting the dominance of the U.S. and West over how the world operates.
Obama and his Nobel Prize, will they know how to take action in this situation? The U.S. president, is he capable — beyond the moral position he has or wants to have — of bringing a credible and stabilizing response to the conflict in Syria beyond an eventual military intervention, or not?
Following his declarations of waging war in the name of morals and respect of human rights, the U.S. president is obliged to re-evaluate his strategy vis-a-vis Syria. Unlike certain authoritarian regimes of Africa, Asia and some Eastern European countries, Western democracies, and especially their representatives, have two superior elements over other regimes — the concepts of negotiation and deliberation.
By asking Congress for its opinion on an eventual U.S. intervention, Obama wants to enter into the history of the world and that of America as a "normal and moral" president. After having criticized Bush and received the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama wants to inaugurate a new American presidency for the future.
End of the American Superpower?
The U.S. is no longer a superpower, according Hubert Védrine's theory. Rather, it is an ordinary power — great of course — with important prerogatives, hoping to live in agreement with the other great powers of the world: China, Russia, and other average powers like France and the United Kingdom. The U.S. wants to act as a model for other countries of the world, which some of them reject — the ones that do not always desire an American presence — Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
With the assistance of its main representative, Vladimir Putin, Russia has developed a distrust of the American attitude. Obama must be present at the G-20 meeting in St. Petersburg at the beginning of September. At this meeting, he should not appear as being the aggressor to a small country — Syria — because Russia, whose geopolitical interests and strategies in the Middle East can be read above all by the role that Syria plays in its political map in this part of the world, could reproach him.
Obama must attend the meeting of Congress, which will take place on Sept. 9. This will weaken the French strategy, and particularly that of President Francois Hollande, who decided to follow the American example on the matter of the intervention in the name of human rights. Mali and the Serval operation are not Syria.
France Will Not Intervene Alone
Since Article 35 of the French constitution allows the French president to disregard an eventual consultation with Parliament, Hollande — for political strategy and French domestic policy reasons — might be obliged to invite the various leaders of French political parties to the Elysée and even initiate a debate in Parliament.
In all ways, the Palace of Elysée is formal. Assuming that Congress says no to Obama, which would result in tying Obama's hands regarding an eventual decision on the matter of an intervention, France would not intervene alone in the region.
Public opinion is heating up in France about the United States, with some objecting to American intervention and others, especially those close to the Syrian opposition or those who sympathize with it, in favor of the intervention. The heart of the matter is relatively easy to present, but the analytical elements are complicated because one cannot punish Bashar al-Assad by dropping bombs on military sites, while doing something to ensure Bashar does not remain president.
Another problem exists that Obama has not mentioned and Hollande has spoken of even less: Bashar's removal could leave a significant vacuum by creating an ethnic-religious war between Sunnis and Shiite, even accelerating the takeover of power by Jihadi Islamists, which neither France nor America, and even less so, Israel, wants.
Dominance of the U.S. and West
American intervention is thus dependent on the decision of Congress, which will meet on Sept. 9. This lapse in time allows Obama to think over political remarks with one of his inevitable and current partners, France, while knowing that their historical partner, the United Kingdom,will not be part of the expedition if approved.
The current world is at an important turning point on how to stabilize for peace, guard geopolitical balances and broaden the market economy. However, not everyone agrees with the market economy and globalization, and some groups — not just Jihadi Islamists — are rejecting the dominance of the U.S. and West over how the world operates.
Obama and his Nobel Prize, will they know how to take action in this situation? The U.S. president, is he capable — beyond the moral position he has or wants to have — of bringing a credible and stabilizing response to the conflict in Syria beyond an eventual military intervention, or not?