Will the US Authorize a Syria Strike?

There are many obviously different views toward Syrian affairs and the United Nations Security Council, but regardless, the United States cannot legally launch a war. Moreover, the U.S. is facing obstacles with NATO and domestic public opinion.

American government officials and media continue to give the impression that war, and the possibility of war in Syria, seem infinitely close. On Aug. 28, White House spokesman Jay Carney denied speculations that the U.S. would strike Syria on the 29th, meaning that Obama is still considering his options; British Prime Minister David Cameron also issued a statement saying that he would propose a resolution to the U.N. Security Council requesting authorization for “necessary measures for protecting civilians.” These two nations considering a possible offensive has relieved the risk of a suddenly triggered war in Syria. However, the risk of war actually breaking out is far from being ruled out.

For now, the main factor preventing war in Syria from breaking out is a lack of legal authorization. First, the U.N. Security Council is the only source of legal approval for strikes; second, NATO has had its own authorization approach for the U.S. and its allies since 2011. Third, after the Vietnam War, the United States enacted the War Powers Resolution, allowing the president to use military force for 60 days without congressional authorization.

Of course, there are obvious differences in views regarding the U.N. Security Council and Syrian affairs; the United States cannot launch a war legally without their authorization. With regards to NATO, besides the United Kingdom., France, Turkey and other countries showing aggressive attitudes, coordination within NATO is incomplete, considering the fact that the general federal election in Germany will not be held until later in September. In contrast, Obama can declare war by presidential decree and can bypass many barriers, but he will still face public disapproval for the war from over half of the country, in addition to potentially threatening Congress into a dramatic political game.

In the near future, the U.S. Congress will be divided on three major issues as a bipartisan showdown unfolds. These three issues include raising the debt ceiling, the 2014 budget and appointing a new chairman for the Federal Reserve. The two parties are described as “irreconcilable,” especially on the issue of raising the debt ceiling. This critical period in the political showdown may force Obama into a governing predicament. Before announcing a war, U.S. presidents always give a televised speech. So far, Obama has no such plan, which sufficiently reflects his hesitation.

Of course, the United States can also play “war by proxy.” This was the first half of the intervention in Libya’s war model. However, despite the UK and France’s aggressive attitude, they are pinned down by the situation and therefore unable to start a war in the near future. The UK military must obtain authorization by Parliament, which could consider authorization by Friday (Beijing Time) at the earliest. France will hold an emergency Parliament meeting on Sept. 4.

Of course, war is still a potential option. Senior U.S. officials announced Tuesday that the purpose an attack would be to send a “strong signal” to Assad’s regime rather than fighting their military. This means that any war would be limited and likely ineffective in significantly changing the state of the civil war in Syria, since it does not help the opposition. The sixth ship in the U.S. navy fleet has currently been stationed in the eastern Mediterranean as a precaution, which would be the main way a war would be initiated. This would be a non-suspenseful and non-confrontational action taken by the military.