The Syria question: Does it really matter to you?

Whatever President Obama's motivation for seeking congressional authorization for a military response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria (constitutional, political, moral -- all of the above, and more), there are significant indications that most Americans would prefer to see our nation err on the side of caution in this matter.

The sting of faulty and, at times, incoherent intelligence concerning Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" is still with us. America is tired of war. America is tired of being the world's enforcer while other nations dawdle. America is tired of too much U.S. involvement where it is needed least. And America is tired of too many words in situations when action would speak so much more loudly.

On that last point, consider this: Pakistan, a so-called U.S. ally, harbors terrorists. The military and civilian leadership of Pakistan knows where the terrorists are. Pakistani government authorities were aware of Osama bin Laden's presence long before U.S. Navy Seals invaded his compound and killed him.

So why didn't the U.S. take direct military action against a known terrorist threat? Why didn't the president (Bush or Obama) get the president of Pakistan on the phone and deliver this simple message: You have 24 hours to hand over Bin Laden or the U.S. will begin systematic bombing of your terrorist-tangled nation until you get the idea we mean business?

Oh. There's that thing called the Constitution. Right.

Article I of the Constitution itemizes the powers of Congress.

Section 8:11 reads: "To declare War, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."

Article II of the Constitution itemizes the powers of the president.

Section 2:1 reads: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States ..."

Make what you will of those two sections of the Constitution. The intervening two-plus centuries since they were written have seen numerous accretions of directives and laws that have a bearing.

If America's standing in a world of large, medium and small nations is at risk, consider this: Why is it that the largest nations, the ones capable of doing the greatest harm, are the least likely to do so? And why is it that the smallest nations, the ones that now have much of the destructive capabilities of everyone else, are considered to be the most likely to act recklessly?

North Korea. Iran. Syria. Libya. Who knows where the next despot is plotting the use of nuclear or chemical weapons in ways that could well unleash an inferno of worldwide proportions?

It is against this backdrop -- world leadership, national responsibility, constitutional limitations -- that the president is seeking congressional input on what to do about Syria.

Meanwhile, China, Russia, Germany, France and Great Britain -- all just as capable of productive intervention -- are waiting to see what the U.S. course of action will be. If anyone thinks the United States isn't at the top of the heap among the world's governments, just watch how all those other governments make their decisions. Watch how they wait to see if they want to join, oppose or ignore whichever direction the U.S. goes.

There is, of course, one direction that seems to get little attention at times like this: No U.S. military involvement in a religious civil war.

If the use of chemical weapons is so heinous, then it will be universally apparent. All those other nations with the power to help police the world won't sit on the sidelines and watch the United States. Action will be swift and direct.

In the end, is much of what we're watching simply a political charade? Will the congressional voting on this matter follow political party lines? If so, how can the politicians justify the notion that genocide and other human atrocities going on in Syria fit neatly into some political agenda?

No matter how you feel about this matter, now is the time to let your U.S. representative and your senators know where you stand. Tell them what you think is best for the United States. And for the world.

Joe Sullivan is the retired editor of the Southeast Missourian.