"Obama is going to be reluctant to publicize chemical evidence for fear it traps them in a corner."
For all of those outstanding reasons the Obama White House is still categorically unwilling to say the line has been crossed. It will probably continue to insist that until it has new and firm evidence. What looms above this is fear of the Iraq example and the fear of undertaking some sort of precipitous action on the basis of that later turns out to have been embellished or fabricated.
It was a mistake to set the red line if they were not willing to act on it. There is a certain amount of leeway they have, but leeway is shrinking by the day ... If this evidence turns out to be solid – if it turns out to be attributed to the regime itself – it may turn out to be the case that this was an act of testing those red lines by using small scale attacks.
If they continue to dodge these questions and they continue to set the bar so high that the evidence for chemical weapons use can never be conclusively demonstrated, then it will have been a grave mistake, because it will have been shown that red lines can be transgressed without any consequences. Which means that other red lines and further violations become more likely. He [Obama] should not have set it, if it was a bluff.
It is absolutely important that the evidence receives a very high degree of scrutiny and the public is able to see that process play out. I would like to see that evidence publicised and made clearer. But the administration is going to be reluctant to do that for fear that it traps them into corner, but I think it is the only way forwards.
http://audioboo.fm/boos/1354260-obama-was-wrong-to-set-red-line-on-syria-s-chemical-weapons-if-he-doesn-t-act-on-it-says-shashj.mp3 (5-minute audio file)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2013/apr/26/syria-chemical-weapons-red-line-live
Interesting the Obama, like Bush, may be reluctant to publicize evidence, but for the opposite reason. Bush was reluctant for fear that it would eviserate his case for invading Iraq. Obama may be reluctant for fear it will trap him in his own words.
I am sure there are many that want the evidence "receive a very high degree of scrutiny and the public is able to see that process play out" (as never happened in Iraq - no outside experts ever agreed that Saddam had WMD) in the belief that will prove that no gas attack happened. I understand the administration's fear that relying on a group of "experts" to determine the "facts" leaves them vulnerable. If an attack is determined to have happened, do you back down ("Just kidding about that whole 'red line' thing. It sounded like the right thing to say at the time. Go ahead and do whatever you want. But in the future when I say something I really, really mean it."
or be pressured to show that you mean what you say.
The interviewee in this audio clip has for a long time been cautioning against drawing 'red lines' in the confrontation with Iran and is now applying the same principle to Syria.
I think that 'bluffing' has been a part of foreign relations (and of life in general) since the beginning of time. You often are not sure if someone really means what they say or are just saying it for effect.
I suppose it would have been more honest of Obama to say to Assad in March, "We think you should not gas your own people, but if you do that is your call." Of course, that might attract the attention of other dictators. Today it seems that many repressive regimes look to having nuclear weapons as the best protection from outside interference with their divine rule. The new 'Assad rule' may be that chemical weapons (much cheaper and easier to get) are an equally good insurance policy against outside support for pesky domestic demonstrators.
= new reply since forum marked as read
