The Red Line for Obama's Credibility

The deployment of poison gas in Syria is a crime against humanity. It puts the terrible atrocities of this civil war in a new light. If he doesn’t want to squander his credibility, President Obama must intervene. But there’s one dilemma he won’t be able to resolve: None of the nations involved in this war are natural allies of the West.

It may sound cynical, but even the decision to intervene militarily has to be made with regard to the cost-benefit principle. For the West, and especially for the United States, the calculation for Syria was simple: War-weariness — Afghanistan and Iraq, plus military risk, plus lack of political perspective, plus international law obstruction by Russia — far outweighed any hope that might be expected to come from military intervention.

But this calculus has now changed dramatically. The use of toxic gas in the suburbs of Damascus is a crime against humanity that puts a whole new light on the atrocities committed in Syria. The conventional wisdom up to now has been to sit it out and stay neutral, but that must now be re-evaluated. President Obama himself defined the new “red line”: The deployment of chemical weapons would be a game changer. That point has now been reached.

First of all, those who use poison gas as a weapon break with all the rules mankind made that were designed to regulate the conduct of war and to protect its victims. The road from gas to nuclear weapons is a short one. Those who break that taboo set a precedent for others to do likewise. That’s why the use of chemical weapons should not be tolerated.

Second argument: In the 1990s, there arose out of the Balkan wars a precept that it was the duty of mankind to protect the innocent from harm. No sovereign state, not even any obstruction in the United Nations Security Council — recently Russia once again — is allowed to prevent the largest possible coalition from hurrying to render assistance when the situation becomes intolerable.

The third policy argument: If Obama fails to intervene now, he runs the risk of losing all credibility. America’s authority will be heavily damaged and none of its threats will ever again be taken seriously. Using poison gas would be the first step in a brutal escalation of the Syrian war and would carry with it a potential for copycat actions globally.

Germany Cannot Escape Responsibility

Poison gas has already been used in Syria — that’s now hardly in dispute. Is it now germane who used it? Not really. From the standpoint of morality, no, because whoever deems it necessary to take action against those who used it must now do so whether the action is against the opposition groups or against Assad’s regime. Realistically, it makes little difference who fired the poison gas shells because none of the combatants are a natural ally of the West, none of them support a cause which makes military engagement worthwhile for them.

Here is the West’s dilemma. Whose side should we support? Assad’s old system at least guaranteed stability, but Assad himself is no longer useful in striking any sort of political deal. Russia will bear the historical guilt for not pointing out this impasse to him and offering him a path to exile.

Among the many opposition groups, the most moderate faction has meanwhile slipped into complete defensiveness. The West is also partly to blame for that because it was too hesitant in offering its support. The result is room for all the extremists now cavorting on the battlefield. Naturally, nobody wants to support them — especially not if it turns out that it was they who began using chemical weapons as a provocation to get the West involved in the war.

But options do still remain: The United States must bring together as many nations as possible in a grand coalition. That would provide a credible threat of force. That will be difficult after two years of war, but it wouldn’t be impossible. Germany cannot escape participating. Second, Assad must be forced to allow inspectors to investigate the possible use of chemical weapons. It’s a reversal of the burden of proof: If Assad claims his troops used no chemical weapons, he must allow the investigation to take place to prove it.

Third, all imaginable political and moral pressure must be brought to bear on Russia to cease its obstructive tactics and contribute to establishing the truth. Those complicit in covering up these war crimes forfeit all respect as an equal player in the international community. Russia’s veto in the Security Council is worth nothing compared to the humanitarian obligation to influence this war from outside — if necessary, with targeted military attacks on missile sites, airbases and military depots. The most important thing now is to act quickly. The images of people writhing in pain won’t easily disappear.