Chemical Weapons in Syria: Now What?
Watching CNN this week, we knew that a chemical war was raging, but we believed it was in Turkey. On Tuesday, special correspondents from the media empire in Atlanta were on air, gas masks on their faces, live from Taksim Square, among firecrackers and exploding tear gas. As if that were the worst thing happening in the world right now. As if in the neighboring country, there wasn’t a real war, particularly chemical, that has already caused more than 90,000 deaths.
In Syria, there are not as many poignant live images, only underground coverage, filmed at the risk of the journalists’ lives, propaganda films from the regime or videos from a suspicious source, suggesting that the “rebels” aren’t really better than those they are fighting. The absence of live coverage has for a while allowed Barack Obama to look the other way or even to assure that what is happening isn’t any worse than the massacres in the Congo, which the entire world, he primarily, has ignored.
Did all of that change tonight? The White House would really like us to believe that, but no. Declaring Thursday that Bashar al-Assad had crossed the “red line” set by Barack Obama with his repeated usage of chemical weapons, the U.S. president appealed to a written report from Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser in charge of communications — in other words, a grade of “serious but not to the point of attracting the president,” on the White House drama scale. Thursday night, Barack Obama was too busy to come explain himself on camera that Syria gasses its citizens and had crossed a “red line.” He was hosting a reception at the White House in honor of Pride month.
While we’re at it, a conference call briefing from the aforementioned Ben Rhodes confirmed that people in Washington no longer believe Obama will take decisive action on Syria. First question from an American colleague: “What would you say to those who might think that this is not such a big deal because the president is not giving voice to this theoretically significant event?” Ben Rhodes’ response: “Well, Major, I think what I'd say to that is the situation in Syria is an ongoing challenge and the president has repeated opportunities to speak to it.” Second question: “Can you help us understand a little bit better of why it took you so long to conclude that Assad used chemical weapons while the French and the British already said that a while ago?” Rhodes’ response: “We've clearly been in strong opposition to what's been taking place in Syria for two years.”
That said, the White House is going to do something. “The President has augmented the provision of non-lethal assistance to the civilian opposition,” Rhodes announced, particularly promising support of the opposition’s military council, but still without specifying how. Americans are going to send weapons to the rebels, assures The New York Times, citing anonymous senior officials. “Any future action we take will be consistent with our national interest and must advance our objectives,” Ben Rhodes stated Thursday night. That’s really the whole problem anyway: Syrians are killing and gassing each other, but tonight, the U.S. president’s “own interest” was spending time with his gay supporters.
In Syria, there are not as many poignant live images, only underground coverage, filmed at the risk of the journalists’ lives, propaganda films from the regime or videos from a suspicious source, suggesting that the “rebels” aren’t really better than those they are fighting. The absence of live coverage has for a while allowed Barack Obama to look the other way or even to assure that what is happening isn’t any worse than the massacres in the Congo, which the entire world, he primarily, has ignored.
Did all of that change tonight? The White House would really like us to believe that, but no. Declaring Thursday that Bashar al-Assad had crossed the “red line” set by Barack Obama with his repeated usage of chemical weapons, the U.S. president appealed to a written report from Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser in charge of communications — in other words, a grade of “serious but not to the point of attracting the president,” on the White House drama scale. Thursday night, Barack Obama was too busy to come explain himself on camera that Syria gasses its citizens and had crossed a “red line.” He was hosting a reception at the White House in honor of Pride month.
While we’re at it, a conference call briefing from the aforementioned Ben Rhodes confirmed that people in Washington no longer believe Obama will take decisive action on Syria. First question from an American colleague: “What would you say to those who might think that this is not such a big deal because the president is not giving voice to this theoretically significant event?” Ben Rhodes’ response: “Well, Major, I think what I'd say to that is the situation in Syria is an ongoing challenge and the president has repeated opportunities to speak to it.” Second question: “Can you help us understand a little bit better of why it took you so long to conclude that Assad used chemical weapons while the French and the British already said that a while ago?” Rhodes’ response: “We've clearly been in strong opposition to what's been taking place in Syria for two years.”
That said, the White House is going to do something. “The President has augmented the provision of non-lethal assistance to the civilian opposition,” Rhodes announced, particularly promising support of the opposition’s military council, but still without specifying how. Americans are going to send weapons to the rebels, assures The New York Times, citing anonymous senior officials. “Any future action we take will be consistent with our national interest and must advance our objectives,” Ben Rhodes stated Thursday night. That’s really the whole problem anyway: Syrians are killing and gassing each other, but tonight, the U.S. president’s “own interest” was spending time with his gay supporters.