I don't agree with those air strikes either because, even aside from the lack of UN approval, they are very clearly not improving the situation if gas attacks are still occurring and civilians are dying. That's just more evidence that this attack isn't going to stop anything either. All it achieved was setting back relations with Russia decades and making the US look ridiculous globally. If you've been trying the same tactic for years and it's not helping, it's time to change to a new tactic.
Well, that's a pretty unreasonable expectation because those airstrikes were directed against ISIS. I thought we all knew that the missile attack just a week ago was the first directed at Assad, and therefore the only ones that could possibly have an effect on Assad using gas and killing civilians.
It's hard to prove either way whether deterrence works, because you can't rewind the tape of history and see how many gas attacks would've happened if not for the airstrike, but I don't think anyone's in a position to say flat-out that the attack isn't going to do anything. Like it's only been a week - we can speak of possibilities, but I really don't think there's enough evidence to say "yes the missiles were absolutely effective" or "no, they're not going to stop anything".
Relations with Russia were already messed up from their invasion of Crimea and their support of the rebels there, and again when Russia started bombing the Syrian rebels in addition to ISIS against which they were originally in Syria for. I'm not exactly sure where this motivation for wanting such good relations with Russia comes from. The US and the world, for that matter, needs and benefits from China much more than Russia, and they're hardly the troublemaker that Russia is. It's nice to be friends with countries, but not if that relationship requires compromising more with them than they're willing to go for us.
And I don't know what you're talking about when you say the US looked ridiculous globally. NATO in general supported it, countries like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela hated it, and pretty much the rest of the world, including China, was neutral. The US doesn't have the best reputation in the world for a lot of reasons, but since the international reactions were so expected, I really don't think you can say it's made the US look worse (but as always, feel free to expand on your arguments).
I think I've made myself pretty clear on my reasoning for thinking Congress or the UN should be consulted over military action like this - one person alone should not have the power to decide to drop missiles on a foreign country.
Then I guess Obama should've consulted the UN or Congress over assassinating bin Laden, too, right? Surprise and decisiveness are necessary in military affairs. You can load yourself all these conditions and consultations, but effectively all you're doing is preventing yourself from taking decisive action when that becomes necessary.
You could argue that Assad is a dictator and therefor violates those same principles but I'm pretty sure you've heard the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right".
You've got to break an egg to make an omelette. To do nothing while chemical attacks occur, while you have the capabilities to do something, is to neglect the current and future victims and disempower the international laws dictating the appropriate conduct of war. You might say I'm breaking some eggs, I would say you're allowing eggs to be broken. Your position gives you the benefit of passing the buck (to Congress or the UN), but standing by and allowing chemical weapons to be used is still wrong. International affairs isn't simply a decision between right and wrong, it also requires you to make a decision between bad and worse. Whether an option is a bad one or the worse one requires a nuanced discussion, much more so than saying "two wrongs don't make a right".
