This has been a turbulent two weeks. One's attitudes have oscillated through anger and despair to a glimpse of hope and ended with renewed confidence in Obama's values and intentions. The principal issue being debated has been whether a US military strike against Syria was justified by Security Council deadlock. On 6 September Obama argued that: 'Syria's escalating use of chemical weapons threatens its neighbours. ... But more broadly, it threatens to unravel the international norm against chemical weapons embraced by 189 nations.'
The Chemical Weapons Convention entered into force in 1997. The US is still in the process of destroying its chemical weapons to comply with it. Obama said in 2012 that Syrian use of chemical weapons would cross a red line which would require an international response. Failure to respond to this use would indicate that there are no consequences from using these weapons of mass destruction. Obama said that he would 'greatly prefer' to work through the UN but that when this is impossible the US has to look for other approaches to 'enforcing international norms and international law'.
It was fairly quickly apparent that Obama was not winning sufficient Congressional or domestic support for a politically justifiable military strike on Syria or internationally at the G20 meeting in St Petersburg. Maureen Dowd wrote in the NYT on 8 September that:
... his lack of enthusiasm came across. He was not thundering from the top of the moral ramparts. He made his usual nuanced, lawyerly presentation, talking about the breach of international 'norms'. It's a weak, wonk word. Norms don't send people to the barricades.
So he needed political support and on 7 September adopted the democratic tactic of asking Congress for authorisation. But he acted as though the commentators were right: if he lost a Congressional vote he would be diminished. He sent his staff out as passionate advocates for a strike. Samantha Power said on Monday morning radio that when the Security Council is deadlocked and retribution is necessary, the Security Council should be by-passed. The shocking impression was that there was little evidence that the Administration had looked for alternatives to war. Security Council deadlock was described as sufficient justificaformtion for the habitual American military action. Diplomatic imagination seemed to have no role.
On 9 September John Kerry said in response to a journalist's question about whether there was anything the Syrian Government could do to stop a US