Getting Serious With Syria? 

A confrontation with Syria appears inevitable. Here's what has happened in the past 24 hours: 
 

• Yesterday Secretary of State John Kerry held a press conference and declared that the Assad regime had in fact used chemical weapons, crossing Barack Obama's "red line." Kerry called the use of such weapons "a moral obscenity" that was "inexcusable and undeniable." 
   
• According to the Washington Post, U.S. naval assets in the eastern Mediterranean Sea are "already positioned" for cruise missile attacks. British jets are scrambling on Cyprus. Reuters reports that Syrian rebel groups have been told to "expect a strike against President Bashar al-Assad's forces within days." 
   
• Russia, China and Iran warned against military action. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that "the use of force without a sanction of the U.N. Security Council is a crude violation of the international law." So much for Hillary's famous "reset" of U.S./Russian relations.
   
• One Iranian military commander predicted nothing would happen. Mohammad Reza Naqdi said, "[The Americans] are incapable of starting a new war in the region, because of their lacking economic capabilities and their lack of morale." Meanwhile, a spokesman for the Islamic Republic of Iran threatened Israel, warning that an attack on Syria would have "perilous consequences" that "will not be restricted to Syria." 
   
• The Israeli government is taking such threats seriously. It has begun distributing gas masks to the public, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to "respond forcefully" to any attack against his country.

The American public and conservatives are deeply conflicted about the proper course of action. A Rasmussen poll released yesterday found that only 31% of voters supported increased military assistance, even "if it is confirmed that the Syrian government used chemical weapons." Part of it is war weariness. 

Some is also due to the failure of Obama to regularly explain what our national interests are in the Middle East. And make no mistake about it -- we have significant interests in the Middle East. 

Another problem is the difficulty in identifying the good guys in Syria's civil war. Israeli intelligence estimates there are as many as 90 groups battling the Assad regime. They range from a few pro-Western groups to Al Qaeda extremists. It is hard to see a good outcome in this mess. 

But in the broader context of American power and credibility, here is our dilemma: Obama set a red line. Assad crossed it. Iran is egging him on, providing military assistance and watching to see if Washington has any credibility when it issues an ultimatum. 

If the Middle East can't trust Obama to act against the Syrian government when it crosses a red line of chemical weapons, why would it believe him when he says he will not allow the mullahs in Tehran to have nuclear weapons? 

Even the New York Times gets it. Yesterday, the Times editorial board wrote: 
 

• "Mr. Obama put his credibility on the line when he declared last August that Mr. Assad's use of chemical weapons would constitute a 'red line' that would compel an American response. …Presidents should not make a habit of drawing red lines in public, but if they do, they had best follow through. Many countries (including Iran, which Mr. Obama has often said won't be permitted to have a nuclear weapon) will be watching."

That is why I joined with other conservative leaders yesterday in urging Obama to act, and asking for increased efforts to identify who, if anyone in the Syrian opposition, would be worthy of American assistance. 

By the way, it is infuriating to hear Obama suggest he needs U.N. approval or international cooperation. The only thing he needs is the approval of Congress, which he did not seek when he committed U.S. forces to overthrowing former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. 

On that point, there is some division among conservatives. I believe the president, as commander-in-chief, has the authority to initiate military action in defense of U.S. interests in emergency situations. Surely the president has the authority to respond to an attack or to prevent an attack on U.S. citizens. 

But while a military response to Assad's use of chemical weapons in Syria may well be justified, it does not rise the level of an attack against America that would permit Obama to act on his own. There is no reason, as the world debates, why Congress should not be part of this discussion. George W. Bush sought and received congressional approval to take military action against Saddam Hussein. Barack Obama should seek congressional approval to act against Bashar al-Assad. 

"If Dr. King Were Alive Today…" 

Yesterday I offered some thoughts about the issues and causes Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., might champion if he were alive today. I'm proud to tell you that Bob Woodson, a former civil rights activist, a black conservative and a big fan of Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp, offered similar sentiments during a speech before the Republican National Committee yesterday. 

Woodson blasted race-hustlers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, saying: "We must be honest about those black politicians who are standing on those who sacrificed and are using that position for corrupt purposes. We need to call them out, because they are moral traitors. They are moral traitors." 

Referring to the condition of the black community, Woodson said: "Blacks today, we're talking about the dream, for many the dream … is a nightmare. Everybody has come in front of them on the bus. Gays, immigrants, women, environmentalists. We never hear any talk about the conditions confronting poor blacks and poor people in general." 

On the exploitation of Trayvon Martin, he said: "If Dr. King were alive today, he would not just be talking about justice for Trayvon Martin, but he would also give a prayer for the 18-year-old man, for this little baby who was shot in the face by two black kids, or the World War II veteran who was beaten to death for $50. Or the Oklahoma player who was killed."