Syria: Barack Obama's Hesitant Turn
A statement has been made. On Thursday, June 13, the White House admitted for the first time that the Syrian government has used a chemical weapon called sarin. Despite the critical nature of this development, it was not President Obama himself who spoke, but rather one of his national security advisers, Ben Rhodes. The statement issued by Rhodes, however, was still quite relevant. In 2008, Obama claimed that using chemical warfare would cross a “red line” that would “change my calculations significantly.” Today, “it has [crossed the line],” assured Rhodes. This announcement marks a turning point in the administration’s policy toward Syria, but is it likely to definitively change the country’s dire situation? Could it prompt a substantive development in the Syrian tragedy that has lasted far too long and led to over 100,000 deaths?
For weeks, if not months, the Obama administration has been avoiding involvement. It is using intelligence that was produced by France and the United Kingdom. It seems clear that this shift takes place immediately after the Syrian rebels suffered a major defeat in Qusayr, being crushed by Syrian forces that were augmented by Iranian forces and Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon. President Obama aims to organize an international conference cosponsored by Russia in order to orchestrate a solution in Damascus. He knows that his efforts will soon become meaningless if the rebel army were to be defeated, especially at Aleppo, a city currently being targeted by Syrian government forces. The president is about to meet his Russian counterpart, Vladmir Putin, at the G8 Summit. Putin is also experiencing the repercussions of public anger in the Middle East; Obama would almost certainly prefer to have a trump card in discussions with the Russians.
But will the situation really change? The United States had seized the evidence of chemical warfare in order to justify direct assistance to the rebellion. But there is a vague understanding as to how this aid will be administered. The opposition army has been demanding anti-tank and anti-aviation weapons in addition to their requests for a no-fly zone that have continued for months. One can understand Obama's extreme reluctance to commit his country to military action, especially in the explosively unstable Middle East. But comparisons between Washington's hesitation and the Russian-Iranian strategy in Syria undermine Obama’s decision, especially when his decision has the potential to end unimaginable civilian suffering and the destabilization of the entire region. 150 deaths caused by chemical weapons are no more scandalous than 100,000 deaths caused by conventional arms. But a line has been crossed; Washington has finally recognized this.
The most striking comment came from former President Bill Clinton, reported by Politico: "Sometimes it’s just best to get caught trying, as long as you don’t overcommit…. My view is that we shouldn’t over-learn the lessons of the past … I don’t think Syria is necessarily Iraq or Afghanistan — no one has asked us to send any soldiers in there.”
“Nobody is asking for American soldiers in Syria,” Clinton said. “The only question is now that the Russians, the Iranians and the Hezbollah are in there head over heels, 90 miles to nothing, should we try to do something to try to slow their gains and rebalance the power so that these rebel groups have a decent chance, if they’re supported by a majority of the people, to prevail?”
The White House will have to choose between verbal posture and tangible action at the risk of doing too little, too late.
For weeks, if not months, the Obama administration has been avoiding involvement. It is using intelligence that was produced by France and the United Kingdom. It seems clear that this shift takes place immediately after the Syrian rebels suffered a major defeat in Qusayr, being crushed by Syrian forces that were augmented by Iranian forces and Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon. President Obama aims to organize an international conference cosponsored by Russia in order to orchestrate a solution in Damascus. He knows that his efforts will soon become meaningless if the rebel army were to be defeated, especially at Aleppo, a city currently being targeted by Syrian government forces. The president is about to meet his Russian counterpart, Vladmir Putin, at the G8 Summit. Putin is also experiencing the repercussions of public anger in the Middle East; Obama would almost certainly prefer to have a trump card in discussions with the Russians.
But will the situation really change? The United States had seized the evidence of chemical warfare in order to justify direct assistance to the rebellion. But there is a vague understanding as to how this aid will be administered. The opposition army has been demanding anti-tank and anti-aviation weapons in addition to their requests for a no-fly zone that have continued for months. One can understand Obama's extreme reluctance to commit his country to military action, especially in the explosively unstable Middle East. But comparisons between Washington's hesitation and the Russian-Iranian strategy in Syria undermine Obama’s decision, especially when his decision has the potential to end unimaginable civilian suffering and the destabilization of the entire region. 150 deaths caused by chemical weapons are no more scandalous than 100,000 deaths caused by conventional arms. But a line has been crossed; Washington has finally recognized this.
The most striking comment came from former President Bill Clinton, reported by Politico: "Sometimes it’s just best to get caught trying, as long as you don’t overcommit…. My view is that we shouldn’t over-learn the lessons of the past … I don’t think Syria is necessarily Iraq or Afghanistan — no one has asked us to send any soldiers in there.”
“Nobody is asking for American soldiers in Syria,” Clinton said. “The only question is now that the Russians, the Iranians and the Hezbollah are in there head over heels, 90 miles to nothing, should we try to do something to try to slow their gains and rebalance the power so that these rebel groups have a decent chance, if they’re supported by a majority of the people, to prevail?”
The White House will have to choose between verbal posture and tangible action at the risk of doing too little, too late.