How Would American Credibility Really Be Affected If We Backed down?

Whether we like politics or not, it's the defining factor in conducting military action. The utilization of force upon other nations absent political objectives is a dangerous game, which will oftentimes lead to a complex foreign entanglement or a failed military operation all together. We've seen this in multiple U.S. military operations over the past 15 years: both Operation Desert Fox and Operation Infinite Reach are prime examples that relate closely to our current predicament in Syria. Lobbing 25, 50, or even 100 missiles doesn't really do much to persuade another nation to submit to your will, especially when you're targeting infrastructure that isn't crucial to ongoing operations. All it does is make it look as if your administration is doing something tough. Given that this is the administration's current position--looking tough--I am against military strikes

However, many proponents of strikes against Syria argue that we need to "look tough" against Assad just to maintain regional credibility. This is a valid point. Credibility is important, especially for a hegemonic power like the United States. Without it, the effectiveness of American diplomacy falters as nations begin to question our word. For example, Ayatollah Khomeini might question American commitment to keeping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Given the climacteric importance of that issue right now in regional politics, it's obviously important to maintain our credibility in the eyes of Iran.

What advocates lose track of, though, is the fact that threats are partially validated by a nation's interests in a given scenario, and partially validated by the resources placed by that nation in the region. Our interests in preventing Assad from using chemical weapons on a small scale are questionable, and the resources we deployed to the region were primarily to protect allies--like Turkey--from being hit by chemical missiles; hence, why Assad flouted our threat.

Yes, the United States doesn't want a precedent for widespread use to be set. But Assad's use thus far hasn't begun to set such a precedent. His chemical attacks have been far less devastating than Saddam's gas attacks during the Iran-Iraq War, and are on par with the Egyptian artillery bombardments during the North Yemen Civil War. Neither country was punished for their actions, and, miraculously, no precedent for widespread use was set. So what makes two incidents of use by Assad any different? It doesn't. Unless Assad starts to conduct massive, World War One scale attacks on rebel positions, I'd say that he isn't changing the overall international dynamic on the use of chemical weapons.

Let's compare this to a nuclear Iran. Not only would that shift the power dynamic in the Middle East towards their favor, it would also give them more negotiating power in diplomatic talks. It would act as an anvil over the head of America that would decrease our ability to deal with their sponsorship of terrorism. There's also a good possibility that nuclear proliferation would become rampant in the Middle East, and a regional cold war could develop. Our credibility in the region would definitely be shot then, as the promise to keep Iran nuke free is crucial to our relationships. Then, of course, you have the potential use of a nuclear weapon against Israel, wiping out one of our closest allies. So it's obvious that we have major interests in preventing Iran from getting weapons, and backing down from our Syrian strikes doesn't change that obvious fact.

Furthermore, backing down from Syria wouldn't change the reality that we have a massive military force in the region posited towards striking Iran. Nor would it lessen the seriousness of the most stringent sanctions we have recently passed against Iran. Not only is it clear that American interests in preventing Iran from getting weapons exist, it's also clear that we are more than willing to use force to make sure that interest is met.

So while American credibility will be damaged, it will not be destroyed. We have shown time and time again that we will intervene on behalf of our interests, whether it be in the form of a drone strike, aerial intervention, or a cross border raid. Countries like Iran realize this, and thus backing down from striking in a situation where we have no interests will not existentially endanger our regional vision for the Middle East.

--Tom