Personal Dilemma: Ethical Dilemma Paper

Personal Dilemma
Author's Name
Institution
Following Syria's chemical weapons attacks on civilians in rebel territories on August 21st this year, there has been increasing debate with regards to the ethics of "intervention" by other countries (Bowen, 2013). In particular, the US has been involved in the matter at a greater depth. President Barack Obama has been tasked with deciding whether to protect Syrian civilians by military intervention or to respect the will of US Congress. On one hand, the international community has an obligation to defend civilians when their own government cannot; thus, it is an ethical obligation to protect civilians. On the other hand, president Obama has a greater ethical obligation of respecting the will of US congress, which is to explore diplomacy with Syrian government and its leader: Bashar al-Assad (Bowen, 2013). With regards to the current Congress, a more parochial, partisan and cooperation-averse group is difficult to imagine.
Owing to international duties and ability, the US has a responsibility to safeguard the lives of Syrian citizens. A requirement, which applies only to actions which are popular, is not much of a responsibility in every aspect. Responsibility implies an obligation to undertake an action that one would rather not. Obama may decide to defend Syrian civilians by military interventions without Congress approval. However, in most democracies, a leader's ethical obligation to serve the wishes of his own citizens supersedes the obligation to help people in foreign lands.
Faced with these two ethical options, Obama has decided to postpone military intervention against Syria (Bowen, 2013). He has decided to respect the will of US congress. By doing so, the president has spared himself a defeat at home...