The Syrian conflict offers the world an opportunity: to find an innovative response to establish global order.
Missile strikes, as limited and justified as they may be, are an act of war against the Assad regime. Yet, I get no sense that the United States has any clear idea of our strategic or operational end state.
As President Obama tries to rally support for a strike against Syria, he finds himself in a high stakes diplomatic chess match with no good outcome in sight. Obama's puts at risk the future of his presidency and his legacy.
Mr. President, our country's recent history makes it very difficult for you to obtain the world's approval that we should attack Syria based on any sort of moral authority.
Some have argued that the president's decision to seek Congressional approval has weakened his office and undermined U.S. standing in the world. But with an ambivalent public and a bitterly polarized Congress, there has been very little for him to work with.
In his 1965 address to the United Nations Pope Paul VI said, "If you wish to be brothers, let the weapons fall from your hands. One cannot love with offensive weapons in his hands." That goes for all weapons.
It's almost never an advantage to be at the bottom. But when it comes to the list of poorest countries in Europe, there appears to be a slight advantage.
Will there be a Western-led missile strike in response? What would such a strike lead to? Regardless of the answers to these questions, one fact is crystal clear: Syrians are going to continue suffering massively, at least in the near-term, and the world is failing to meet their needs.
I haven't celebrated Labor Day in many years. You see, Sept. 1 is Japan Dolphins Day, an ominous date for me and millions of people who watch in horror as another dolphin hunting season commences in the little town of Taiji, Japan.
I applaud Obama for sending a resolution to Congress that would, if passed, legitimize any military action the United States would take against the Assad government. Establishing legitimacy and a robust public debate over proposed military action are signs of a healthy democracy.
This is not the first time the U.S. has had to lead against brutal dictators. But this may be the first time that U.S. diplomacy has so dramatically failed in rallying a public coalition of support.
One risk was obvious. And that is that with or without Congress's authorization, waging war against a nation that has not directly attacked or poses any direct threat to the United States again tags the U.S. as the dreaded, and in the Middle East, hated aggressor and bully.
Arguably, by intervening in Syria's civil war, President Obama is ignoring Washington's advice and repeating the mistakes of the Bush administration in aggressively invading foreign countries that pose little threat to the direct security of American citizens.
Why are elected officials framing the argument that the United States' international reputation will be harmed if we don't drop bombs? Why is it always about us?
Over a lifetime of far more warfare than peace, I've seen the United States kill more innocents than bad guys and cure very few of the world's ills with its bombs or soldiers' boots.
Those who oppose some kind of intervention in Syria must answer the following question: What to do about the ongoing atrocities occurring there?
There are too many drumbeats building up behind some form of military action in Syria, and the tempo of those drums is reaching a nearly hysteric level. That incessant thundering drive is drowning out the public's sensible questions.
Given that more than half of the states in the U.S. have various incentives or mandates for solar, why wouldn't Congress consider catching up to China with this policy on a national level?
Luis Moreno Ocampo, 2013. 4.09
A View from the United Nations , 2013. 4.09
David Harris, 2013. 4.09