Obama delays Congressional vote on military action in Syria

Raul Herrera/Staff Writer

The Syrian chemical weapons crisis finds a new potential solution, as suggested by Russian President, Vladimir Putin.

President Obama announced his decision to delay Congressional voting on any military action in Syria in favor of a more diplomatic approach on the night of Sept. 10. His proposal includes working with Russian and Chinese officials, along with the United Nations, to ensure that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad surrenders his chemical weapons peacefully to international bodies.

“I think it’s a smart tactic to hold off on the strike,” said Michael Collado, senior broadcasting media major. “We’ve been in a 10-year war in the Middle East Iraq and military involvement in Syria should be pondered as much as possible.”

The President also laid down what some have called a moral case for US involvement in Syria, expressing what he claimed to be the basis for involvement. He described the suffering of the victims of the attack. He also quoted Franklin Delano Roosevelt, citing that the United States must stand to tyranny abroad and not let the crisis go unpunished.

“It’s a bit of a push and pull situation,” said Chavon Ellington, senior journalism major. “In one hand, I don’t think we should behave like the international police; and, on the other hand, once you see the images of the Syrian people, it’s hard not to feel like someone should step in.”

As postulated by political science professor Kevin Evans in a previous article, the president emphasized his supposed ability to strike without Congressional approval, but that he desired to turn to diplomatic solutions first and to Congress, the latter of which is required by the Constitution.

A poll conducted by CNN shows that 61 percent of Americans who watched the speech on Sept. 10 were in favor of the president’s approach to the situation, while 37 percent were in opposition. Most of the Americans polled also believed that this solution would work against the Assad regime. However, 64% of Americans, according to a Reason-Rupe poll, do not trust the President’s foreign policy, citing it to be worse than his predecessor’s.

President Assad claimed in an interview with Charlie Rose on Sept. 7 that his troops were not behind the Aug. 21 chemical attacks near Damascus, saying that Secretary of State John Kerry did not have enough evidence to suggest that his army even had weapons of the sort. He also argued in favor of his battle against the rebels, citing it as a necessary action against what he referred to as Al-Qaeda. However, Syrian state news reported on Sept. 10 that Assad is supportive of surrendering his chemical weapons.

Some, like Former Congressman Allen West of Florida, have criticized the President’s decision, claiming that it has gone against the ‘red line’ that he referred to in his previous speeches. Congressman West also believes that this is capitulation to Putin and Russia, which runs contrary to the solution that Dr. Felix Martín–international relations and political science professor–supported.

“The option for the US is political/diplomatic, not military strategy at the moment,” said Martín. “This is a golden opportunity for the US and the Europeans to put Moscow and Beijing on the defensive.”

Israeli President Shimon Peres implied that this proposal is not wise, since he does not believe Assad is reliable. However, earlier comments by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to Fay Goldstein of Shalom@FIU, point to a lack of Israeli involvement unless it is attacked.

Shlomi Dinar, associate director of the School of International and Public Affairs, was not available for an interview, but pointed to a panel discussion by FIU Faculty experts that will occur on Monday, September 16 at 2 PM in GC 243.

 -news@fiusm.com