Commentary: President Obama's Slippery Slopes on Syria

Yahoo asked Americans to react to President Barack Obama's address on Syria on Tuesday evening. Here's one perspective.

COMMENTARY | In his speech on Syria, President Obama argued against slippery slopes. He said that a strike on Syria wouldn't lead to the slippery slope of further U.S. involvement, that cruise missiles wouldn't lead to boots on the ground.

The president is right to argue against the rhetorical fallacy of slippery slopes. Unfortunately, his main argument for attacking Syria is itself a slippery slope. The Washington Post reports that the president said:

"If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas and using them. Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield, and it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons and to use them to attack civilians.

"If fighting spills beyond Syria's borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan and Israel. And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction and embolden Assad's ally, Iran, which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon or to take a more peaceful path."

There is no reason to believe that any of these bleak scenarios is certain to happen. If any one of them were to come about, the U.S. could deal with that specific situation at that specific time.

It is illogical for the president to insist that nothing bad could result from our following his plan, while insisting that disaster would be the certain result of not following his plan.

In fact, there are any number of disasters that could result if we bomb Syria. Some of the rebels have vowed to slaughter the Alawite people, and they would get their chance if Assad fell. U.S. bombing is often imprecise, and more innocent Syrians could die. And there is always the danger of a wider war.

Bombing is therefore the wrong choice.

View the original article here