There is no reason to pursue a peace process if everyone involved in achieving a peace is dead.
After two years of civil war there are terrible things happening, including child soldiers and that is on both sides of the war.
But, when it comes to supplying arms, the USA usually negotiates with sovereign ally states, such as Israel and sales are established. This is a more sensitive issue as there is not a sovereign nation the Syrian rebels currently govern. However, arming the vulnerable is not unusual for the USA either.
June 19, 2013
French military officials are training rebels fighting to bring down the Assad regime in the current Syrian conflict, according to a report by Army Radio.
The army-run radio station reported that French officers stationed in Jordan and Turkey are currently training the rebels in warfare tactics and weapons usage. Army Radio quoted "experts with access to the information" in their report.
If the information is accurate, this would mean that the French government is the most active Western power working to topple Bashar Assad's regime. On the diplomatic front, Paris is also working energetically to convene the so-called "Geneva 2" peace summit, though the chances of the summit's success are slim.
Army Radio reported that French intelligence officers are working in tandem with Saudi officials who are funding the rebels. There is also close cooperation with Turkish defense officials, especially in light of an anticipated battle over the city of Aleppo....
Under the Clinton Administration there was a peace initiative as well. It was the Dayton Peace Accords and President Clinton received a Nobel Peace Prize for the outcomes. Let me state right now President Obama is not vying for a Nobel. He already has one. The work his administration will carry out with Syria is a continuation of his first commitment to peace.
...After three and a half years of fighting, (click here) the Dayton Peace Accord was signed in Paris, France, on December 14, 1995. Three weeks of intense negotiations at the Wright Patterson Air Base in Dayton, Ohio, preceded the signing with the U.S. and other allies having taken an active role in those talks. Significant progress has been made in the restoration of Bosnia-Herzegovina by the U.S. and other countries, including a sharp decrease in inter-ethnic violence, restored freedom of movement from country to country, and more than one million refugees and others returned to their former homes by October 2004....
Oddly enough, the Dayton Accords achieved stability in the region in three and a half years where the occupation of Iraq lasted ten years. The lands involved are smaller then Syria, so establishing safe areas of Syria should be possible. I don't know of any nation that has tougher borders to defend than Israel. It is a small country in highly volatile circumstanes.
The Reagan invasion, wayward to not, into Grenada didn't take an act of Congress.
So, is President Obama within his right as President to seek to assist allies? Absolutely. As a matter of fact, if Congress seeks to end his right to assist allies before he actually does it would be litigable at the Supreme Court. The President does have powers. He has a right to use them. Pre-emptive Congressional legislation is unconstitutional. It is why the War Powers Act exists. If Congress wants to change the War Powers Act to impede the President further it may or may not be possible.
The French and Germany along with the UK may very well have a good idea of what is necessary to stabilize the carnage by Assad forces. The idea is to stop the violence and seek a power sharing government, for as problematic as they can be, it is still a viable solution.
Should nations have a conscience about such violence? I can't imagine they should not. Is The West capable of leading an effort to stop the carnage and establish a peace process? They aren't? President Obama is not a war president. His answers to global violence is not more violence. Anyone can annihilate people with bombs. The USA could without a doubt stack the deck to favor a greater carnage than Assad can put together. But, we know from experience in Iraq that is a very bad idea. While some ethnicities appreciate the USA's war machine clout, those dying are keeping score, they are not forgotten and retaliation comes. While The West sees an ethnic group as the bad guys, there is a party on the other side of it that sincerely disagrees.
I just think all this fuss about assisting allies is ridiculous. President Obama does not want to revisit wars of the past and repeat the same mistakes.
I think there will be working relationships that will come about with Russia and NATO allies that will bring about a peace for Syria to stabilize the region. I also believe it has to be given a chance and it seems as though the French are already assessing the dynamics and making plans. It would be ridiculously hideous to believe we could look the other way and expect our national security not be in question. I think those in Congress that want to tie the President's hands will find they are not pursuing constitutional processes.
Do I like the idea President Obama has to participate in throwing around the military clout of the USA? No. But, the reality exists and we cannot deny our allies are involved in something they have deemed a concern to their sovereign nations.
