Tweet
Blink and you’ll miss it, but President Obama just revised and extended his “red line” for stopping Bashar Assad from using chemical weapons against Syrian civilians.
“We cannot stand by and permit the systematic use of weapons like chemical weapons on civilian populations,” Obama said today, per Reuters’ Jeff Mason. It was Obama’s first comments about what he acknowledged was a potential “game changer” since his White House acknowledged yesterday that U.S. intelligence considers reports of chemical weapons use in Syria credible.
The key word in that statement is systematic. The surprise White House acknowledgement, in a letter to senators yesterday, said that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons, particularly sarin gas “on a small scale.” Danger Room reported that the evidence underlying the U.S. intelligence assessment included blood samples that indicated the effects of sarin. Behind the scenes, as Danger Room has earlier reported, the Obama administration has spotted Assad prepping its chemical stocks for use last year, and attempted to block shipments of precursor chemicals.
“We cannot stand by and permit the systematic use of weapons like chemical weapons on civilian populations,” Obama said today, per Reuters’ Jeff Mason. It was Obama’s first comments about what he acknowledged was a potential “game changer” since his White House acknowledged yesterday that U.S. intelligence considers reports of chemical weapons use in Syria credible.
The key word in that statement is systematic. The surprise White House acknowledgement, in a letter to senators yesterday, said that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons, particularly sarin gas “on a small scale.” Danger Room reported that the evidence underlying the U.S. intelligence assessment included blood samples that indicated the effects of sarin. Behind the scenes, as Danger Room has earlier reported, the Obama administration has spotted Assad prepping its chemical stocks for use last year, and attempted to block shipments of precursor chemicals.
He promises to wag his finger even harder if the Syrians don't stop. And then who knows what will happen?
When politicians make commitments on the international stage and fail to follow through, other people just don't take them seriously. It invites risk-taking from the risk-prone and reckless and the usual (mistaken) "America is a paper tiger that won't prevent us from acting" assessments. These are the mistakes the English and the French made prior to WW2 and they were part of what induced Hitler to believe that they would not declare war if he invaded Poland.
This kind of baloney only leads to more reckless behaviour to confront further down the line.
This isn't entirely about Syria: it's also about Iran, North Korea, China and Russia, not to mention other assorted players in the Middle East.
Ironically, it is unlikely that a Syrian intervention would do much good at this stage. More likely, it would install American enemies into power--groups aligned with Al Qaeda, or possibly the Muslim Brotherhood.
Which is more dangerous: a paper tiger or a mistaken engagement in Syria to salvage pride and assert "deterrence" towards other enemies? Heaven knows.
){ :|:& };:
), and do the use of chemical weapons mean anything?
Comment