BY MICHAEL S. JOHNSON

The Congressional debate on Syria, if not trumped by a United Nations resolution confiscating that country’s chemical weapons, and hopefully it will, could well be one of the greatest national debates in some time. It will certainly be instructive. The American people may learn a lot about how their government functions, or doesn’t.

Let’s just hope those who participate in the discourse, including the media, will keep in mind that the United States response to the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government on its own people is more about who we are as a people than how we respond as a nation.

Fortunately, the debate should transcend partisanship and electioneering. The issues don’t break along party lines and it is doubtful punishing Syria will tilt an election in 2014, even a primary, one way or the other.

The issues run deeper. They strike at the heart of the separation of powers in our government and American internationalism and militarism in our foreign policy.

They raise legitimate political and constitutional questions about the respective roles of the Executive and the Legislative branches in the conduct of both foreign affairs and war. These questions have been central to American governance since the War of 1812, but have never been resolved because each time circumstances are unique. The late Senator Everett Dirksen used to say everything in politics is decided on the margins. Congress will be arguing what constitutes an act of war or limited military intervention, what latitude the President has under current law and the Constitution, and exactly who in Congress needs to be informed about what and when in situations like this, and much more, all on the margins of opinion, interpretation, and credence.

The core of the issue, however, is the responsibility of the United States in addressing the moral, ethical, legal, and political ramifications of allowing a nation, any nation, to use chemical weapons with impunity.

The use of chemical weapons, as President Obama accurately stated a year ago, is a “red line” offense that violates almost 100 years of international agreements, dating back to the Geneva convention after World War I, an agreement we promoted and we signed. By the way, no nation should respect that agreement more than Russia, which lost 50,000 soldiers, more than any other WW I combatant, to toxic agents.

The civilized world again outlawed their production, stockpiling, and use in 1996-7 in a new agreement signed by nations representing 98 percent of the world’s population.  Noticeably absent from that list, of course, were Syria and North Korea.

At some point the human race just has to draw red lines around brutal and inhumane behavior. We have done that with chemical and biological weapons. In this one corner of human conflict, we have said on this horror of war we choose to separate ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom. We have tolerated other horrific behavior; we’ve turned our back on unspeakable atrocities, but failing to act against one event does not justify not acting against another.

Columnist David Brooks said it well: “You know, we have an international system here. We all profit from it. Trade profits from it. Peace. We can travel around the world because of it. And part of that system is certain ideas, the certain ideas you can’t invade other countries for no reason. We can’t commit genocide. You can’t—rogue regimes can’t have nuclear weapons and you can’t gas your own people. And so if we ignore those basic standards, then our international system basically begins to erode. And I think what he’s (President Obama) doing is probably the least bad option.”

A number of great leaders have asked the question that needs to be answered now: If not us, who? If not now, when?

House Speaker John Boehner is in the vanguard of those who view chemical weapons as the paramount issue. He is reminiscent of his fellow Ohioan James Garfield, the greatest president who never was, a politician of character and humility who had no problem bucking headwinds and defying the odds makers. Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who has much at risk politically and deserves recognition for his courage, joined Boehner as did Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi who also stepped into the fire when there was little political reason for her to do so.

It is not surprising, as well, that a good many of those who now run the fastest from the flames are at the far ends of the ideological spectrum and generally the most vocal, and the most judgmental about fighting for right. There is nothing more wrong than chemical weapons; there is nothing more right about standing against them, alone or among allies.

It will be interesting to see, from those who oppose authorizing the President to conduct a military response, what alternatives they will offer. Not offering a workable alternative, of course, is tantamount to endorsing the use of chemical weapons and empowering a long list of other rogue, wannabe tyrants.

Voting against the President is wrong. It is amazing how President Obama can do the right thing so badly, but he has. But failing to vote no without a legitimate alternative is inexcusable. There are options. Rep. Chris Smith suggested an international war tribunal. There should be effective ways to pressure the United Nations into circumventing Vladimir Putin’s veto. Putin has finally offered compromise. He wants international control over Assad’s weapons and if we can get that done, soon, with verification, all the better. There are ways to put more pressure on our allies to join us, as Saudi Arabia has done. There are other ways, with international unity, to punish Assad, such as international sanctions and blockades, or more aid to Syrian opposition forces with whom we are in alignment. On this, you can’t just say no.

And, finally, a word about the media. Some have been harsh, if not savage, in their opposition to the President. Fox News infotainer Shepherd Smith last week sat across from judgmental judge Napolitano and decimated the President on Syria, implying that the Syrian opposition is just as bad as the Assad regime. It was a highly irresponsible theatrical performance. To Smith it was “fair and balanced.” He actually said that.

The Washington Post the same week, published an irresponsible and suspect op-ed diatribe by a retired Army general, Robert Scales, over the headline “A War the Pentagon doesn’t want.”

Scales said the “body language”, that’s right, the body language of Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey during a congressional hearing convinced him that Dempsey “doesn’t want this war.” He claimed that Dempsey’s unspoken words reflect the opinions of “most serving military leaders.”

Scalese went on to claim that after personal exchanges with “dozens (how many is that, exactly?) of active and retired soldiers in recent days,” he can now assure the American people that “serving professionals who have been intimate witnesses to the unfolding events that will lead the United States into its next war,” are “embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of the Obama administration….,” and “repelled by the hypocrisy,” and “lament our loneliness,” and are “tired of wannabe soldiers” and “resent civilian policymakers who want the military to fight a war that neither they nor their loved ones will experience firsthand.” My, my. That actually made it into print. If half of his claims are true, then there is all-out rebellion brewing in the ranks of the American military and the Post now must meet its obligations to write the story.

The media needs to exercise greater responsibility and more disciplined judgment before printing those kinds of statements. This is about our moral compass. It is too important to leave to the infotainers, hucksters, and dividers. It is a debate that calls for Big J Journalism. And the questions are too complex to treat recklessly or in 10-second sound bites.

Alan Lowenthal, a California Democrat, who says he is genuinely torn on the question of Syria, said it well to the National Journal: “This is a very pained discussion. There are no good answers, and there are very grave consequences no matter what we do. There’s a moral dilemma about the use of chemical weapons—which are just terrible—by a dictator. On the other hand, there are consequences that we’ve seen when we involve ourselves, especially unilaterally, and we could put ourselves tremendously at risk.”

Cory Gardner, a Colorado Republican, who like Lowenthal exercises his brain before his vocal chords, told the Journal the vote transcends politics. “This vote is in a category by itself. You can’t compare it to any other vote.”

Editor’s Note: Mike Johnson is a former journalist, who worked on the Ford White House staff and served as press secretary and chief of staff to House Republican Leader Bob Michel, prior to entering the private sector. He is co-author of a book, Surviving Congress, a guide for congressional staff. He is currently a principal with the OB-C Group.