Congress Should say NO to Obama re Syria. Time to find a new approach.

There seems to be widespread consensus that, overall, Obama has handled the Syrian “problem” badly.  (I would argue that Syria is not the problem, Obama’s handling of the situation and the American obsession with trying to be the world’s policeman, problem solver and implanter of democracy is the problem.)  Even Time agreees.  Isn't it  ironic how the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize (what a joke) and a candidate who was touted as the "Peace President" is rattling the sabers.  Dindn't welearn anything from Vietnam, Iraq or Mogadishu?  Congress should soundly refuse to approve to Obama's request American military intervention, and strongly state its opposition to any direct American military involvement there without Congressional approval. Syria is a chaotic, unstable, disaster.  This humpty-dumpty will not be put back together again for decades, if ever.  In part it has developed into a Sunni v. Shiite war that we cannot fix.

Humanitarian motives are good, but often things backfire and in the volatile and religiously polarized Middle East we cannot control the outcome.  I hate to sound cruel, but massive casualties in a civil war in a country thousands of miles away, is not a justifiable national interest for  intervention in Syria.  Have we made things better in Iraq?  Have we built a stable democracy in Afghanistan.  Since we got out of Vietnam, the country united and peace prevailed.  The humanitarian thing to do is to stay out.

This is not going to be a relative cake-walk like Libya.  Syria has powerful allies (e.g. Russia and Iran).  How will Russia and Iran respond.    Lebanon, via Hezbollah, has already been drawn into the conflict.  This could easily spiral into a major multi-national conflict.  There was lots of open ground in Libya.  Syria is much more heavily urbanized.  The Syrias have a first class Soviet-made air defense system.  Syria has huge stockpiles of chemical weapons that need to be factored in. 

Some argue that our failure to act could result in the Russians gaining control or undue influence.  They can’t control it any better than we could.  Didn’t they learn anything from their Afghani debacle?  If action must be taken, let it be the U.N. or other nations in the region.   

 The British Parliament has spoken out agianst British intervention.  There is no enthusiasm by the French or any of our European allies for intervention.  The UN has shown no interest in involvement. Have these folks finally figured it out?

In this context the problem of Presidential powers v. Congressional powers is a difficult and complex one.  The War Powers Act is now working. Let's use this Congressional veto as the start of trying to build a new Executive-Legislative working arrangement.  One that will keep Presidents with itchy trigger fingers from dragging us into problems that we cannot solve, involvement that will probably market things worse, and that involve no true central national interests and only squander American lives and treasure. The status quo is not working.  Let's use this situation as a starter for a new approach.