Military Strike in Syria Not in American Interest

The Syrian conflict is a violent, unfortunate situation, but American military intervention is not in our best interest. What we are watching unfold is a civil war, a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia and a religious war.

America should avoid being drawn into this conflict since the president’s recent proposal is a gesture, not a clear policy or military strategy, and it will certainly not change conditions on the ground. The United States has not been attacked and neither have our allies.

When I look at this conflict, I am struck by the groups involved in the Middle East. In this civil war, it is difficult to spot the “good guys” or determine if they even exist. For this reason, it is unclear whose side we are on, and unless we know that, it does not make sense to risk the precious lives of those serving in our military.

Obama administration officials have stated that any U.S. military action would not be intended to change the regime or to alter the balance of power between the government and the opposition. I cannot understand why we would ever become involved under such conditions and with a mission that does not even seek to change the regime. Instead, the president’s proposal is a thinly veiled diplomatic ploy that recklessly uses our brave men and women in uniform to make a point.

It is revealing to me that very few countries or organizations have asked us to intervene militarily in Syria. Neither the United Nations, NATO or Arab League have requested American military action. Perhaps this is because they have not been persuaded by the Obama administration that anything they have proposed is likely to be effective or in the best interests of the region.

Frankly, if military action is called for in Syria, against an Arab government to protect an Arab population, America should allow other Arab governments to take the lead. But we have no business being there. As a matter of fact, I think that everyone who is advocating an American military strike will come to regret it.

More importantly, the American people strongly oppose involvement in this Syrian civil war, and that sentiment is especially apparent across the Fourth District of Oklahoma. This opinion has been expressed to me, loud and clear, by the people that I represent—not at just one or two town halls, but literally at every public or private meeting and casual encounter I have had since the president decided to put this issue before Congress. Constituents in my district do not support military intervention in Syria because they recognize there are no compelling American interests involved, there are no easily identifiable “good guys,” there is no coherent plan beyond dropping a few bombs to send a message, and they lack faith in this administration’s competence to wage an effective military campaign. These are concerns with which I strongly agree.

Since the issue was brought to Congress, I have listened to the best evidence available. I participated in the first Capitol Hill briefing, and I continue to study all of the relevant information about the situation. In addition, I have listened to the case made by the Administration and have been in contact with the White House, as well as my own party’s leadership. I will continue to listen until the time of the vote, but at the end of the day, I will certainly vote against military action in Syria. At this point, I do not see any circumstances where that is likely to change.

Using our military to make a diplomatic point is unfair to the brave men and women who volunteered to defend the United States, and it is an inappropriate use of American military power. More importantly, my constituents certainly have not been convinced that this policy is wise, prudent and without risk. I represent 750,000 people, and when those people think this strongly about such an important issue, I certainly have an obligation to make sure their views are reflected in my vote.