Obama did not set a red line

[jsr]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23962304
Syria crisis: Obama says world's credibility on the line

Mr Obama was asked in Stockholm whether the decision to ask Congress to vote before taking military action - which he was not constitutionally obliged to do - had put his credibility at stake.

"My credibility is not on the line. The international community's credibility is on the line," he replied.

Mr Obama had previously said that the use of chemical weapons would cross a red line.

But he insisted that it was not he who set this line but the international community, by signing a treaty saying their use was "abhorrent", and Congress by ratifying it.

[The Link]

1. Christ, what bullshit.

[bhikkhu]

37. Except that it is true, and very simple

The international agreement was made in 1925, and the vast majority of the world agrees with it. Obama reiterated what the international community holds to.

I'd rather ask why the UN has done nothing, than criticize the president for saying something must be done; but the UN may still act, as they will be meeting over it soon.

[TM99]

38. Did the international community punish the US

for the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam?

No.

So, yes, this is bullshit. The UN and the US are inconsistent, incongruent, and highly hypocritical when it comes to genocide and WMD's.

[bhikkhu]

39. Agent Orange was designed to kill plants

it has never been listed under the Chemical Weapons Convention.

We probably knew it caused health issues, but recall that we were also spraying DDT anywhere and everywhere at the time. Hindsight makes us better informed now, but it hardly renders the US and the UN "inconsistent, incongruent, and highly hypocritical".

A better case could be made for hypocrisy in our use of white phosphorous in Fallujah. I really wished at the time that the UN or UN member countries would speak out against that. That they didn't was a big failure of responsibility, and not one that I want to see repeated.

[TM99]

40. And Willie Pete

depleted uranium shells, and MK77's are designed for heavy armor destruction, but it has still been used against soft targets.

I do not want to be reminded of Fallujah given the atrocities there.

Having the UN act on this is the best option. That ship has likely sailed given the hard-on for war this administration now has.

Use of aerial incendiary bombs against civilian populations, including against military targets in civilian areas, was banned in the 1980 United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Protocol III. However the United States reserved the right to use incendiary weapons against military objectives located in concentrations of civilians where it is judged that such use would cause fewer casualties and/or less collateral damage than alternative weapons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_bomb

The new boss is same as the old boss.

[Harmony Blue]

3. This has to be a joke?

[woo me with science]

4. Fucking surreal.

Good god.

[BeyondGeography]

5. This is apparently today's thing to be upset about

Obama calling on signatories to a treaty to live up to its principles.

Yeah, I am shocked.

[Harmony Blue]

7. Syria is not signed on

so how is this a red line? Derp.

[BeyondGeography]

9. That's funny

Good one.

[progressoid]

14. Where in the Chemical Weapons Convention do its principles call for bombing by the US?

[BeyondGeography]

20. The UN is the decider, per Article 12

But we have this little problem with Russia, so Obama is in the process of calling their bluff. And it's working:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/02/vladimir-putin-syria

You'll have more of a point when we actually bomb Syria without any international support.

[GladRagDahl]

6. Sigh

I'm done.

[leveymg]

8. According to the NYT, it was Israel that blackmailed Obama into the redline speech a year ago.

Almost exactly a year earlier, on Aug 20,2012, Obama made a speech.

The use of chemical weapons, itself, was not exactly Obama’s original “red line,” as he laid it out during a news conference at the White House on Aug. 20, 2012. For purposes of expediency and practicality, media outlets have simplified the “red line” as this: If Syria deployed chemical weapons against its own people, it would have crossed a threshold with the White House.

But what Obama said was a little less clear.

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,” the president said a year ago last week. “That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”

It was also unclear what the consequences of crossing that “red line” would be. Obama has cautioned that unilateral action, particularly without a U.N. mandate, may be unwise and could run afoul of international law. In keeping with the strategy he used in seeking international cooperation for airstrikes against Libya in 2011, Obama warned in a CNN interview last week that international cooperation is key to military intervention.

To many, Wednesday’s attack outside Damascus would likely qualify as “a whole bunch” of chemical weapons deployed. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/08/president-obamas-red-line-what-he-actually-said-about-syria-and-chemical-weapons/

What is the context of that speech? According to the NYT the following day, Israel was signaling that if the US did not take a harder line, it would act preemptively as it had done in bombing a Syrian reactor under construction: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/world/middleeast/obama-threatens-force-against-syria.html?_r=3&src=me&ref=world&

Mr. Obama, who has said little about Syria in recent weeks, stressed the regional risk from its unconventional weapons. “That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria,” he said. “It concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us.”

His comments seemed aimed as much at the Israelis as the Syrians. Israeli officials have indicated they might intervene if they thought those weapons were on the loose and might be unleashed on their territory.

By hinting that the United States might participate in locating and neutralizing the weapons, Mr. Obama was clearly trying to forestall the possibility of an Israeli move into Syria — and the reaction it might provoke.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. I'm confused. Is that supposed to let the President off the moral hook?

[leveymg]

13. No, it's supposed to show the genesis of "the crisis" and the claim being made that the red line

is based in international norms.

In fact, the "red line" is something that has its origins in the pressures being exerted by Israel and the real politik relationship the US has with that country, which is the most interested of all foreign parties in the outcome of the current debate over US military intervention in Syria.

[joshcryer]

12. Ridiculous.

Obama's red line statement was clearly off the cuff, he stated the obvious, moral position on chemical weapons, which 98% of the world agrees with. It may have been politically wrong to say it (since he couldn't predict the future or the ramifications), but it was correct.

[leveymg]

16. No, the red-line statement was neither off-the-cuff nor is it rooted in intational treaty oblig-

ations. The Chemical Weapons treaty is not universally enforcing and only applies to signatories, of which Syria is not one.

If you have better sources than those I quoted for the origins of Obama's red-line, please cite them. Otherwise, you are merely parroting "The Line of the Day."

[joshcryer]

17. Bullshit.

I've had this same line told to me. DUers arguing that releasing chemical weapons were legal because Syria didn't sign on to the Chemical Weapons Convention. Fact is that it would still violate the Fourth Geneva Convention and Protocol I, full stop.

[leveymg]

19. I didn't say it was right, I just said there's no legal basis for US unilateral enforcement of the

Chemical Weapons treaty.

What is the basis in the 4th Geneva Convention and Protocol I - and why doesn't Kerry argue that, instead? The reason is, the US arguably violated them in Iraq.

[joshcryer]

21. Oh, another poster claiming I am arguing for unliateratal action.

And I'm the one parroting the line of the day? How coincidental that in the span of 10 minutes two posters make the same allegation?

I am, of course, openly, against any unilateral action. I, in fact, think that it is promising that Obama is blaming the international community, comprising 98% of the world, for inaction on an atrocity, because it means he can say "welp, I'm not dealing with this, you deal with it."

The US doesn't note the 4th Geneva Convention or Protocol I because Russia would veto any action in the UN, since they are making good money selling arms to Syria. I hope that this is a sea change in how Obama is handling this, because he can then take it to the UN and then Russia is tasked with dealing with the hard questions. And the US gets to sit back and do nothing. That's the good outcome. That's the smart decision. I hope Obama takes it.

[leveymg]

22. UNSC approval is required for enforcement of the Geneva Protocols. Without that, military

intervention is illegal, even if done in the name of the Chemical Convention, enforcement of which is conditional upon UNSC action.

Personally, if Russia and China decide that the Assad regime was responsible and needs to be removed, I would support a truly global response to remove the regime for trial at the Hague, but not without UNSC approval.

[joshcryer]

24. Obviously, I don't see where we disagree.

Russia is the one who is at every step stopping the UN from doing shit about anything. Russia won't even allow the UN to condemn Syria for its documented excessive force (indiscriminate shelling, cutting off power, cutting off water, etc).

I think Obama's statement today was brilliant. And I hope to fuck he actually sticks to it and pushes Russia into the corner with it. Let Russia deal with this, because Russia is the one fueling it, in the end.

[leveymg]

26. Ok. Put it in Russia and China's lap. If they agree to military intervention, that will remove

all practical and legal barriers to such global action. That's the way the UN system is supposed to work,and the only way we can do this without further damaging it.

The Syrian Defense Minister's expressions of outrage and order to stop the attack upon speaking to the chemical unit's commander the early morning of Aug 21-22, however, makes me doubt this was truly ordered by the regime and was instead an unauthorized launch by a lower military commander. That changes the appropriate response, in my opinion.

[joshcryer]

29. Agreed on the first point.

The second point I am uncertain on.

Ultimately I don't think there should be a military response since I fear, I think rightly, that Assad will use any military response or even sanctions as a pretext to crack down harder. Doesn't matter in the end to him if he ordered it or not or if rouges did it or even if rebels or rebel sympathizers did it.

It's all on Russia. China will happily abstain going on their comments in the past. China has used their veto 8 times. Total. And four of those times were with Russia. Two of those were regarding Syria (sanctions and intervention). Russia is playing the game and China is their patsy.

[leveymg]

31. The Admin. needs to declassify those intercepts and rest of the body of evidence

so the whole world knows what the USG thinks it knows about what happened that night and who is really responsible.

That's the key issue, for me. But, unlike 2003, there has to be complete transparency and not even the suggestion of cherry-picking and stovepiping of intelligence.

[joshcryer]

34. Agreed.

Any assessment / circumstantial evidence needs to be released.

In the end the US needs to take an isolationist stance here, outside of opining on the situation. Obama can really change US foreign policy here if he does it right, but I fear and suspect he won't. His latest comments at least indicate to me he knows he can do it but I don't think he will. I hope I'm wrong. I haven't been this optimistic since the nerve agent release happend, really. I am disappointed so many are mocking Obama on this. He's basically walking back his statements further whether people appreciate it or not. A few more steps and he's free to do ... nothing.

[joshcryer]

11. 98% of the world is signed on to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Those who disagree that the Chemical Weapons Convention, under the vast majority of the worlds population, is a red line, have officially jumped the shark. They have zero credibility.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. The US and just 35 other nations refuse to sign the Land Mines Ban. These mines are left

to blow kids to bits years after we have ended 'conflict'. The vast majority of the world's population have banned these weapons. To use them as we do could be seen as a redline by nations who don't.

[joshcryer]

30. As well they should be.

As well as Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (incendiary weapons like napalm or white phosphorous). Please don't take my statements as an excuse for the United States' failing in other areas. The US has destroyed 90% of its stockpiles and those stockpiles left are only there because facilities must be built on site to destroy them (so much for funding of chemical weapons decommissioning).

[JayhawkSD]

15. His position might be tenable...

...except that he said it would be a "red line for us." Watch the film clips. He used the line several times, and he may not have used the last two words each and every time, but he did use them at least once.

[Savannahmann]

18. Ok, talk about walking a statement back.

I've seen politicians walk statements and mis-statements that seemed like a good idea back before. But wow, I've never seen anyone tote anything this big back.

If we needed anything to see that the American Public is not behind this insanity in Syria, then this is the proof. The only way that President Obama would do this is if focus groups, polling, and expert political analysis has come to the same conclusion that a vast majority of us here have. That Syria is a bad idea that isn't getting any better with spin.

[leveymg]

27. +1

[GeorgeGist]

23. K and R for Exposure.

[Little Star]

25. Well here are a few examples from Slate where he did set a red line

President Obama's Five Warnings to Syria Not to Cross His Red Line

Q So you're confident it’s somehow under -- it's safe?

THE PRESIDENT: In a situation this volatile, I wouldn’t say that I am absolutely confident. What I’m saying is we’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans. We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that’s a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons. That would change my calculations significantly.

The fact that Hizbollah’s ally -- the Assad regime -- has stockpiles of chemical weapons only heightens the urgency. We will continue to cooperate closely to guard against that danger. I’ve made it clear to Bashar al-Assad and all who follow his orders: We will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, or the transfer of those weapons to terrorists. The world is watching; we will hold you accountable. (Applause.)

And, Mr. President, thank you again, and I just want to know -- you are a superpower; you are leading the super power, the United States of America. You don’t have a plan to put an end for what’s going on in Syria -- the bloodshed, the killing. And now they are talking about using a chemical weapon. What’s your comment about that?

POTUS: You mentioned the issue of chemical weapons. We have called for, and we know that the U.N. is now moving forward on an investigation of exactly what happened. We're monitoring the situation ourselves. I have said publicly that the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime would be a game-changer from our perspective, because once you let that situation spin out of control it's very hard to stop, and can have enormous spillover effects across the region.

http://www.slate.com/sidebars/2013/04/barack_obama_s_red_line_warning_to_bashar_assad_the_president_repeatedly.html

Slate is just one instance showing that he did set a red line. The internet has many, many more if you care to be open minded enough to check for yourself.

[joeybee12]

32. Barack Obama: "Don't listen to what I said...

Listen to what I tell you I said."

Don't believe your own ears!

There's such a thing as walking back a statement...but come on!

[nebenaube]

33. right on cue...

Up is Down, Left is Right, Freedom is Slavery, War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength. That sensation you are currently feeling is cognitive dissonance. If you feel your head may explode, please run out to the street where the ants can clean up. That is all.

[Iggo]

35. Starting....right.....NOW!

[Bradical79]

36. He's a politician

And this is what politicians do when they paint themselves into a corner. I think when he said this he assumed more of the public would be on board with getting involved in Syria if chemical weapons were used. People in general though seem more aware of the splintered nature of the rebel groups, and much more skeptical after getting involved in multiple wars under Bush.

I have a hard time being too upset about this as he at least made what I think was a good decision domestically in putting the question before congress and this is a job for the international community. The U.N. needs to find some sort of solution rather than just watch our country bomb Syria unilaterally. Our attempts to be world police tend to go sideways at an alarming rate.