As evidence mounts that Syrian strongman Bashir al-Assad used chemical weapons on his people, President Barack Obama is attempting to erase his once-firm "red line" on the topic.
Last August, the president vowed "[t]here would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movements on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons." Doubtless this was meant to deter Assad from tapping his chemical weapon stockpiles. But Assad called Obama's bluff, embarrassing the U.S.
Iran is following the Syrian conflict closely, and for two hugely important reasons. One, Syria is one of Iran's strategic allies. If the Assad regime falls, Iran loses its direct line of support to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Two, the Iranian regime is watching the U.S. response to Assad's provocations to see just how much it can get away with. Tehran now knows Mr. Obama's red lines aren't to be taken seriously.
U.S. inaction also informs Mr. Assad that he has more breathing space; he can continue to wreak carnage against his own people without fear of American meddling. It also sends a broad message to the world: The U.S. is actually quite tolerant of chemical weapons use.
That epiphany may embolden American enemies; it should certainly worry our allies. It's bound to increase the risk that more nations will acquire -- and use -- mass casualty weapons.
Mr. Obama's reluctance to get involved in another Middle East conflict is understandable. But sometimes limited involvement up front is necessary to preclude prolonged military engagement later.
Collecting evidence about what's going on before acting is a no-brainer. But wherever there is conflict, it is impossible to get a complete and crystal-clear picture about what is where and who is doing what -- especially at the tactical level. What Clausewitz called the "fog of war" exists in every single military conflict and it's the reality in which every American president must make decisions and authorize operations.
Also understandable is the president's preference for securing the cooperation of allies in undertaking whatever intervention is deemed necessary. It's something that should be pursued. But our allies will be more likely to pitch in if the president has a plan. And as for the UN working alongside the U.S. ... that's a pipe dream. Russia holds a veto in the Security Council, and Moscow not only wants Assad to succeed, it wants America to fail.
So far, the president has failed to advance American interests in the Syrian conflict one inch. It isn't even clear what the president realistically wants to see happen in Syria.
The White House issued a nice press release in February 2012. It said, "We will help because we stand for principles that include universal rights for all people and just political and economic reform. The suffering citizens of Syria must know: we are with you, and the Assad regime must come to an end."
Doubtless, Syria's "suffering citizens" agree. After all, Assad has tragically killed roughly 70,000 of them. But the Obama administration has provided little help to bring the regime to an end.
At the start of the revolution, the U.S. should have begun cultivating relationships with the non-Islamist factions of the opposition and worked doggedly to consolidate their power. It didn't. Instead, it weighed its options for months on end. And, all the while, terrorist groups gained power within the opposition, making it increasingly harder for the U.S. to support them.
This has raised the stakes in Syria, while making intervention all the more challenging. Assad is now desperate enough to use chemical weapons on his people to maintain power. The risk of a humanitarian catastrophe is tremendous -- and so is the threat that Syria remains a terrorist state; a chemical WMD-using arm of Iran.
Like it or not, what happens in Syria does not stay in Syria. Rather, it directly affects American security.
"Boots on the ground" or "hollow threats" is a false choice. The Commander in Chief needs to explain to the American people why stability in Syria is necessary for their security. Then, he needs to do whatever he can to empower the non-Islamist factions within the opposition, including providing arms.
Yes, those weapons could end up being used against Americans. But right now that risk must be weighed against the down-stream risk of chemical weapons being used against Americans.
Will President Obama do everything in his power to help force an outcome in Syria that is more favorable to the United States? Unfortunately, that remains an open question.
