Obama gives diplomacy one more chance

It is a time offered to diplomacy, after Moscow proposed to place the Syrian chemical arsenal under international control.

Russian offer would imply the neutralization of the main peril regarding the regional and international security and would also foster the beginning of peace discussions that might lead to the end of the internal conflict at Damascus. John Kerry and Sergey Lavrov, the chief diplomats of the two powers are expected to meet on Thursday, September 12, to start discussions on this issue, while the White House and the Kremlin Palace will remain in contact at the highest level.

The Congress has to debate on a resolution that authorizes the use of military forces in an aerial operation against the capabilities of the Assad regime to use chemical weapons – an operation that should last for 90 days.

The use of chemical weapons in Syria – a national security danger for US

Yet, in his remarks made on Tuesday, September 10, the chief at the White House did not forget to build his case for the use of force no matter the result of the international diplomatic efforts or legislative debate within the Congress. The Constitution of the United States offers him large prerogatives when the nation’s security is endangered – including to command a military operation without having an express approval of the Congress. Even before asking the Congress to postpone the debate regarding the military mandate, the President argued that the use of chemical weapons in Syria represents a direct threat at the address of the United States and their allies in the region. His words were unequivocal – “what happened to those people, to those children”, he said referring to the victims of August 21 Sarin gas attacks at Damascus, “is not only a violation of international law, it’s also a danger to our security”. The American President indicated that the absence of a strong and immediate response would allow Bashar Al Assad to continue using mass destruction weapons as repression tools against his opponents and would send an encouraging message to Iranian leaders to further develop their nuclear military program.

Commander in United States Air Force, Janine Davidson:

”THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE TIRED OF WAR”

Dr. Janine Davidson is an Assistant Professor at the School of Public Policy at George Mason University in Arlington, VA, where she teaches courses on national security policy making, strategy, civil-military relations, and public policy. She also led policy efforts for U.S. global defense posture and international agreements related to U.S. forces stationed overseas, while co-chairing the U.S.-Australia defense posture working group. In 2012, she was awarded the Secretary of Defense Medal for Outstanding Public Service.

She began her career in the United States Air Force, where she was an aircraft commander and senior pilot for the C-130 and the C-17 cargo aircraft. She flew combat support and humanitarian air mobility missions in Asia, Europe and the Middle East and was an instructor pilot at the U.S. Air Force Academy.

As well she taught political science and international relations courses, following research in prestigious academic institutions in the United States.

In an interview offered to Q Magazine, Janine Davidson, one of the leading military experts in the new generation, considers that even if President Obama gave to diplomacy another chance he did not renounce to the military option.

Q Magazine: What brings new the Russian offer?

Janine Davidson:  The latest offer from Russia is positive.  If we can get Assad to turn over his chemical weapons and come to the table to make peace without launching this strike, which will be fabulous all around – for everyone in the region and in Syria.  i think it is important to recognize the role of the credible threat of force here.  That is, the fact that President Obama – the most war-averse President in modern history – is primed for this action -must be taken seriously.  If anyone wants to avoid this, it would be President Obama.  That he has gotten to this point is a Big Deal, and demonstrates just how much all other options have been exhausted.

It is possible that the Congress will reject President Obama’s request

Q Magazine: What are the chances for a US Congress rejection of the White House’s requests to use military force against Assad regime?

Janine Davidson It is possible that the Congress will reject President Obama’s request.   The American people are tired of war and skeptical that military force will not spiral out of control — this is due to the memory of Iraq, where the Bush Administration initiated war under false pretexts, and then conducted the war without a clear understanding of how it would unfold, leading to a massive conflagration and thousands of deaths.  However, as international support grows and as/if the evidence of use of chemical weapons becomes clear, members of Congress will not want to be blamed for more Syrian casualties.  The Congress will try to find a clear way to say to their constituents – this is important, Assad’s behavior is outrageous, and we must act, and we do not think that this will pull the US into a quagmire.

Q Magazine:  Do you think that Obama is going to use constitutional prerogatives regarding the use of military having not the approval of the Congress?

Janine Davidson:  He has held, as all modern Presidents have, that he has the legal authority as the Commander in Chief to act with or without Congressional action.  He will try to find a way with or without Congressional action.  Even if he gets a majority „no” vote, he will have demonstrated bi-partisan support from many in Congress.

There will be civilian casualties for which the US will be at fault

Q Magazine: What are the military risks for the US in Syria?

Janine Davidson: Missile and air strikes by the US can be quite targeted and can do a great deal of damage.  The strikes will be most effective if they are able to change Assad’s calculus by irreversibly damaging his war making capacity – not just his chemical capabilities.  The best case outcome would be that Assad comes to the table following such strikes, before the conflict spirals out of control on the ground.  Of course, if strikes do small damage or simply “pin-prick” Assad, and otherwise empower the opposition, the fighting will get worse before it gets better.  In that case, pressure on the International Community – and the US in particular – to intervene with more than just air power (i.e. boots not the ground) will grow.

The military risks are: that there will be civilian casualties for which the US will be at fault; that the strikes will not do enough damage to Assad’s ability to launch more strikes – chemic and conventional; that there will be “asymmetric” responses (especially likely if there are egregious civilian casualties – or the perception by those predisposed to mistrust the US that there are more civilian casualties)

OBAMA: ”If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons”

„The question now is what the United States of America and the international community is prepared to do about it, because what happened to those people, to those children, is not only a violation of international law, it’s also a danger to our security.
 Let me explain why. If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons.

 As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas and using them. Over time our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield, and it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons and to use them to attack civilians.  If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan and Israel.

And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran, which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon or to take a more peaceful path.”

President Obama’s speech, September 10th