Ever since the Vietnam War, American presidents have made a point of rallying international support before launching high-profile military operations, such as the Gulf War, the NATO bombing campaign in the Balkans, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and, most recently, the no-fly-zone to protect opposition forces fighting Muammar Qaddafi in Libya.
But Obama knew that the United Nations would not authorize a military strike in a bid to uphold the international ban on chemical-weapon use – mainly because Russia and China would oppose any such Security Council resolution. Then Britain's Parliament voted Aug. 29 to reject military participation in a strike against Syria. Together, these two repudiations of Obama's preferred course of action have fanned concerns at home in the US.
"I would greatly prefer to be working through multilateral channels and through the United Nations to get this done, but ultimately what I believe in even more deeply ... requires that when there is a breach this brazen of a norm this important and the international community is paralyzed and frozen and doesn't act, then that norm begins to unravel ... and that makes for a more dangerous world," Obama said at a press briefing at the G20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, on Sept. 6.
Eleven nations that attended the G20 summit signed a US statement condemning the use of chemical weapons and calling for a "strong international response" to the "horrific" Aug. 21 attack. These are Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Spain, South Korea, and Turkey. Meanwhile, 28 European Union foreign ministers unanimously endorsed a statement that there was "strong evidence" that the Assad regime was responsible for the attack but adding that any action against Syria should be delayed until UN inspectors release their report later this month.
After a Sept. 9 meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Paris, Kerry announced that Saudi Arabia and Qatar backed calls for a foreign intervention "to protect the Syrian people." But so far, the only other countries to publicly back military intervention are Turkey and France. France later qualified that support by saying it wanted to wait for the UN report. No nations have specified if or how they would contribute to a US-led strike in the absence of a UN or NATO mandate.
"Americans are not eager to be the world's policeman," says Michael Dimock, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. "And it doesn't help when traditional allies, like Britain, aren't backing us up."
It's a concern that carries weight with members of Congress, who are hearing from voters back home that the US can no longer afford to police the world.
"With limited international support, we are being told the United States must retaliate for the use of chemical weapons with a surgical bombing campaign of our own," said Sen. Tom Udall (D) of New Mexico at the Sept. 3 hearing.
"We're being told we're bombing in order to send a message. But what message are we sending? To the international community we're saying once again the United States will be the world's policeman," he said. On Sept. 4, Senator Udall was one of two Democrats and five Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations panel to oppose the resolution to use force. The measure passed the committee but faces bipartisan opposition in both the Senate and, especially, the House.
