Charles B. Rangel: Obama's Syria plan has many dangers

• We should not get drawn into another proxy war that would entangle us with Hezbollah%2C Iran and Russia.
• Al Qaeda will try to use America%27s involvement to mobilize extremists.
• Congress shouldn%27t fail to assert its constitutional authority when it comes to war.

As President Obama meets with world leaders, I hope that he can reach an international consensus on engaging in Syria because we should not get drawn into another proxy war that would entangle us with Hezbollah, Iran and Russia.

While I understand that President Obama's recent decision to begin arming the rebel forces in Syria was the product of lengthy internal debate and careful consideration, I remain wary of an escalation in American involvement. As the United States takes on an expanded role in this volatile regional conflict, we should reflect on the lessons we have learned from the past decade of war and carefully consider how and why we wage war.

The conflict in Syria is complex and constantly changing. The rebel forces have been infiltrated by Al Qaeda operatives, making it near impossible to differentiate between friends and foes. Even if we are able to successfully transport the weapons to moderate factions of the opposition, it is unlikely that our support will turn the tides of the conflict. If arming the rebels proves to be insufficient, what does America do next?

The dangers of this slippery slope cannot be overstated. A larger American role in the conflict is likely to provoke internal and regional backlash. Al Qaeda will try to use America's involvement to mobilize extremist elements of the opposition and hijack the rebel movement. U.S. intervention also could instigate a broader regional conflict with Iran, which would further complicate our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. All of these risks will be borne by our young service men and women in the Middle East. So before committing a single American pilot or soldier to the conflict in Syria, Congress must have a robust debate about the national interests that our troops are being asked to protect.

Since the enactment of the War Powers Act in 1973, which I supported then and support now, Congress has been reluctant to assert its authority when presidents decide to send American soldiers into harm's way. The War Powers Act requires presidents to seek the consent of the American people, through their representatives, before sending our troops into war. It is the responsibility of Congress to deliberate and consult with the executive branch before involving ourselves in a military conflict. If Congress fails to assert its constitutional authority when it comes to something as serious as war, we are contributing to the slow erosion of our democratic principles.

As a Korean War veteran, I have seen the consequences of warfare firsthand. Even as we wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are only just beginning to recognize the toll these conflicts have had on our soldiers. Various mental illnesses, such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression, and even suicides afflict our veterans for decades after they return home. Due to high combat exposure, combined with multiple deployments, we are seeing record rates of mental health problems amongst the more than two million Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans.

That is why I introduced my Universal National Service Act, known as the "Draft Bill," in order to help reduce the overwhelming burden faced by our soldiers -- currently, only half of one percent of the American population serves in the military. By requiring all 30 million Americans age 18 to 25 to perform two years of national service, in the military or civilian life, we will be asking for a shared sacrifice from all American citizens.

As we consider our strategy towards the civil war in Syria, we must consider the long-term costs of warfare. The expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan exploded our deficit during the Bush years and will continue to cost us millions of dollars for years to come. As we continue to nation build at home and wrestle with our growing deficits, we must carefully consider our national priorities. If our primary concern is the well-being of the American people, we should replace the sequester with increased investments in education, training, and infrastructure, not spend million dollars on another war on foreign soil.

Rep. Charles B. Rangel is a Democratic congressman from New York.

In addition to its own editorial, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors.