Syria's chemical weapons red line has troubling consequences – for Obama

[xchrom]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/26/syria-chemical-weapons-red-line-obama


A White House letter to Senator John McCain said: 'intelligence assessments alone are not sufficient.' Photograph: Larry Downing/Reuters

Barack Obama is in a bind. On 21 March, he set out a "red line" for Syria over the use of chemical weapons:

"We will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, or the transfer of those weapons to terrorists."

Failure to heed the warning would result in "consequences".

But the Obama administration is rightly reluctant to be drawn in to the Middle East. So, even after announcing on Thursday that it is likely that chemical weapons had been used, the White House has begun to backtrack.

Desperate to avoid following through on its warning of "consequences", the White House has thrown up lots of seemingly reasonable excuses: there is no certainty yet that chemical weapons have been used; the US cannot intervene on the basis of intelligence alone; and in any case, it may only have been a small amount

[Downwinder]

1. He could always send covert drones to the FSA.

The CIA would not miss them, because they do not exist.

[Niceguy1]

2. you shouldn't

Draw lines that you aren't willing to back up with actions.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Obama fell into a trap that would compel him to become involved militarily with Syria.

Even if he was bluffing b/c he believed there would not be any chemical weapons, it was a possibility and thus, committing him and our military in this foreign affair.

Israel tried several times to get Obama to draw a "red line" for action and he successfully sidestepped the issue. But here we are now and he either takes action and another military theater opens up or he takes political heat for "doing nothing while people die" and being a hypocrite without standards.