We adamantly oppose the use of chemical weapons in any case. We all feel a deep moral obligation to those hundreds or perhaps thousands of Syrian civilians who were killed by a chemical weapon attack. We all want to do something, but what?
President Obama advocates strongly for a U.S. military strike to punish the Syrian government. We think he’s wrong. The argument for a military strike inside the administration appears to boil down to, “We have to do something.” That’s not a sufficient reason, given the dismal histories of U.S. interventions in Asia and the Middle East.
We applaud Obama’s decision to follow the Constitution and share the decision on the use of military force with Congress.
The goal should be to secure civilians from future chemical weapons attacks. That goal can best be achieved by diplomacy. Here is one example of a diplomatic solution that might be simple and practical enough to work. The U.S. could probably get Russian and Chinese agreement on a U.N. resolution for the removal of all chemical weapons and chemical weapon components from Syria, both government and rebel controlled areas. The Syrian government would be highly motivated to satisfy such a demand from the Permanent Five of the U.N. Security Council.
A multinational team could be rapidly deployed to find, remove, and secure those chemical weapons. Such a diplomatic initiative would protect Syrian civilians from future chemical weapons attacks, something a punitive military strike would not do. Such a diplomatic initiative would dramatically reduce the risk of unintended consequences and escalation of a military strike.
With a military strike we become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Smart diplomacy, not military muscle, is called for in this dire situation. Peaceful protection of civilians is the answer.
Beth Amoriya is clerk for the Athens Friends Meeting, which is part of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers).
