The news is full of stories about the ongoing debate in Congress. I want to put an ending bookmark on my posts on the subject of Syria before moving on to other things. You can read my other recent posts  here, here, here, and here.

In sum, the arguments for making war on Syria are very poor – and it is making war. The arguments against making war are excellent. This Charles Krauthammer op-ed lays it out beautifully. I will add a few points.

The president, after bloviating for months about how Assad “has to go”, while doing little or nothing about it, has now decided to ask Congress for permission to attack, permission he says he will disregard. This odd attitude is emblematic of the incoherent policy of the president, that seems much more concerned with domestic sensibilities than international realities.

It is a great disappointment to me that the “credibility” of the US has come up as a key factor in a decision to attack Syria. This reminds me of the mafia chief who is afraid that the neighborhood toughs will cease to fear him if he allows anyone to show disrespect.

Our national credibility is not measured by the number of nations who fear us. It is a function of how carefully we make our commitments, especially where follow-through is hopefully beyond testing, like nuclear deterrence. It is also measured by how well our actions match our words on a day-to-day, year-by-year basis. Credibility comes from faithful, diligent and careful preparation that ensures that every promise is backed up with the appropriate resources for effective action, should action be required. Credibility comes from consistency of purpose. It is from making our objectives clear. It is from using all the devices and methods of influence available, short of military force, to achieve our objectives. A consistent, purposeful policy seeks to ensure that military action will never be required.

In this, our president has utterly failed. Rather than defining our interests and declaring how and when we will defend them, he has been our apologizer-in-chief, substituting lofty rhetoric for clear purpose, and often treating our enemies better than our allies.

Our credibility is on the line, but it will not be protected by following foolish rhetoric with foolish action. Congress should vote no, and insist that our credibility be rebuilt, by restoring purpose, prudence, and diligence to our foreign policy.