The Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons to murder thousands of its own citizens should be understood for what it is: an international crisis. Retribution from the West is necessary and warranted. Inaction from the U.S. and other Western democracies signifies a win for violent, Middle Eastern dictatorships and will certainly lead to more senseless killing.

Syria is in the midst of a civil war that has taken the lives of approximately 100,000 people, according to UN calculations. On Aug. 21, the Syrian regime, led by dictator Bashar al-Assad, used chemical weapons to kill, by U.S. calculations, 1,429 of its own citizens, including 426 children, according to John Kerry’s public address.

President Obama has made it clear that he wants to attack Syria in retribution. However, the President will seek Congressional approval prior to any attacks and he must accept whatever outcome he receives from Congress.

The window of time to launch a military attack to catch the Syrians off-guard has already closed. An attack at this stage would primarily be a show of force. However, this does not mean an attack is unwarranted.

President Obama correctly realizes an attack is necessary but, taking from the examples of Iraq and Afghanistan, understands it would be unwise to act without congressional approval.

On Aug. 31, President Obama stated in a public address, “I’ve long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

Waiting for a congressional vote before attacking makes the situation more about the Syrian people themselves than about a hasty response from horrified Western democracies.

The U.S. knows it would be entering a conflict that runs deeper than simply the intrastate conflict in Syria. The Syrian regime is a direct ally of Iran and one of many anti-Israeli, anti-American countries in the Middle East.

Iran and Syria both pledged to bomb Israel if they believed Mr. Assad was personally in danger from Western attacks. It is also likely Iraq would send militants to Assad’s aid if this occurred. Any action between Syria and Israel would inevitably involve Lebanon, adjacent to both Syria and Israel.

Nonetheless, the United States and other Western countries cannot sit idly by while Syria murders its own citizens using chemical weapons, which 188 countries have pledged to never use, stockpile, or transfer under the Chemical Weapons Convention, according to Foreign Affairs magazine.

Those opposed to attacking Syria primarily question the purpose and ramifications of a military response.

We must give greater weight to the consequence of inaction than the outcome of an attack. Inaction on the part of Western countries will signify to violent dictatorships throughout the region that we are scared to intervene following the failings of Iraq and Afghanistan.

To these countries, inaction will mean they have a right to continue the abject killing of their own people and the stockpiling of deadly weapons of mass destruction.

Assad is not an isolated dictator. He is the leader of a regime but not a supreme ruler. If the military leaders in Syria feel the costs of using chemical weapons are too high, they will force Assad to fold his hand. This sort of pressure can only come from a Western military response.

A collective Western response would be the ideal situation but, currently, a military response from the U.S. and France seem most likely. At the very least, congressional approval is necessary before the U.S. takes any action.

The Syrian people deserve protection and retribution from the rest of the world, but the American people, through the arm of the legislative branch, deserve to be consulted with before our leaders take action.

Michael Hacker is a senior political science major. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at mahacker@syr.edu and followed on Twitter at @mikeincuse.

Published on September 3, 2013 at 2:29 am