This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/26/syria-chemical-weapons-red-line-obama

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Syria's chemical weapons red line has troubling consequences – for Obama Syria's chemical weapons red line has troubling consequences – for Obama
(5 months later)
Barack Obama is in a bind. On 21 March, he set out a "red line" for Syria over the use of chemical weapons: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.""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".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.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.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.
This prevarication has produced a predictable outcry from Congress, and not just from Republican senators like John McCain. The Democratic chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, Dianne Feinstein, said the red line had clearly been crossed:This prevarication has produced a predictable outcry from Congress, and not just from Republican senators like John McCain. The Democratic chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, Dianne Feinstein, said the red line had clearly been crossed:
"Syria has the ability to kill tens of thousands with its chemical weapons. The world must come together to prevent this by unified action.""Syria has the ability to kill tens of thousands with its chemical weapons. The world must come together to prevent this by unified action."
So, where does this leave Obama, apart from regretting ever mentioning red lines?So, where does this leave Obama, apart from regretting ever mentioning red lines?
There are lots of arguments for intervention, not least that the use of chemical weapons is a breach of international law. On top of that, the United Nations in 2005 stated that governments have a responsibility to protect their populations and failure to do so – as in using chemical weapons against them – creates an obligation on the part of the international community to intervene.There are lots of arguments for intervention, not least that the use of chemical weapons is a breach of international law. On top of that, the United Nations in 2005 stated that governments have a responsibility to protect their populations and failure to do so – as in using chemical weapons against them – creates an obligation on the part of the international community to intervene.
That UN statement fits in neatly with America's doctrine of liberal intervention. The problem is that the US has not been consistent in its pursuit of liberal intervention.That UN statement fits in neatly with America's doctrine of liberal intervention. The problem is that the US has not been consistent in its pursuit of liberal intervention.
Over the last 30 years, it has been swung back and forward, between liberal interventionism and isolationism. Its intervention in the Lebanese civil war proved to be short, pulling out after suicide bombers killed 241 marines in Beirut in 1983. That debacle, combined with the "Black Hawk down" experience in Somalia in 1993, was to have disastrous consequences, producing a period of isolationism that led to President Clinton failing to intervene to stop the genocide in Rwanda in 1994.Over the last 30 years, it has been swung back and forward, between liberal interventionism and isolationism. Its intervention in the Lebanese civil war proved to be short, pulling out after suicide bombers killed 241 marines in Beirut in 1983. That debacle, combined with the "Black Hawk down" experience in Somalia in 1993, was to have disastrous consequences, producing a period of isolationism that led to President Clinton failing to intervene to stop the genocide in Rwanda in 1994.
Obama, like Clinton, is a prisoner of history. Just as Lebanon and Somali led to an impasse on Rwanda, Obama is frozen by the catastrophic failure of the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq.Obama, like Clinton, is a prisoner of history. Just as Lebanon and Somali led to an impasse on Rwanda, Obama is frozen by the catastrophic failure of the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Unlike Rwanda, however, Obama's reluctance to become involved in Syria may turn out to be no bad thing. While a small, disciplined international force would almost have certainly prevented the Rwandan genocide, Syria's situation is much more complex.Unlike Rwanda, however, Obama's reluctance to become involved in Syria may turn out to be no bad thing. While a small, disciplined international force would almost have certainly prevented the Rwandan genocide, Syria's situation is much more complex.
The Obama administration is playing for time, passing responsibility to the United Nations – both to establish whether chemical weapons were used and what action, if necessary, should be taken. The UN investigations team, at present stuck in Cyprus, barred from entry to Syria, may yet conclude that chemical weapons were used but do not expect any action to follow. With Syria's ally, Russia, on the UN security council, any push for military intervention by the UN can be vetoed.The Obama administration is playing for time, passing responsibility to the United Nations – both to establish whether chemical weapons were used and what action, if necessary, should be taken. The UN investigations team, at present stuck in Cyprus, barred from entry to Syria, may yet conclude that chemical weapons were used but do not expect any action to follow. With Syria's ally, Russia, on the UN security council, any push for military intervention by the UN can be vetoed.
So that leaves the option of the US and its allies acting unilaterally. The Pentagon assessment is that intervention would require 70,000 troops to take over Syria and secure the stockpiles. That is not going to happen.So that leaves the option of the US and its allies acting unilaterally. The Pentagon assessment is that intervention would require 70,000 troops to take over Syria and secure the stockpiles. That is not going to happen.
The US could opt for air strikes to destroy chemical weapons stockpiles – but what would be the consequences of bombing chemical weapons? There is the risk that it would release the poison into the immediate locality. There is also the problem that some of the the chemical weapons may no longer be in stockpiles, but have been dispersed across the country.The US could opt for air strikes to destroy chemical weapons stockpiles – but what would be the consequences of bombing chemical weapons? There is the risk that it would release the poison into the immediate locality. There is also the problem that some of the the chemical weapons may no longer be in stockpiles, but have been dispersed across the country.
An alternative to full-scale invasion or bombing is to send in special forces to protect the stockpiles. But that is an unrealistic expectation of the ability of these forces: how could a small force be expected to hold stockpiles across the country, surrounded by potentially hostile groups?An alternative to full-scale invasion or bombing is to send in special forces to protect the stockpiles. But that is an unrealistic expectation of the ability of these forces: how could a small force be expected to hold stockpiles across the country, surrounded by potentially hostile groups?
The option favoured by Britain and France is to arm the rebels. Again, the Obama administration is reluctant, worried that radical factions hostile to America might rise to the top. In the end, that is the option the Obama administration might yet pursue – while, as in Libya, letting France and Britain take the lead (at least, in public).The option favoured by Britain and France is to arm the rebels. Again, the Obama administration is reluctant, worried that radical factions hostile to America might rise to the top. In the end, that is the option the Obama administration might yet pursue – while, as in Libya, letting France and Britain take the lead (at least, in public).
But there are a lot more factions and religious groupings in Syria than Libya, with the potential for even more unforeseen consequences. Adding to the volatile mix in Syria are its neighbours: Israel, Lebanon, with the Shia militia Hizbollah allied to Syria's president Bashar al-Assad, and Iraq. There is a risk that the country could disintegrate, splitting into two or three unwieldy pieces, making an already unstable region even more dangerous.But there are a lot more factions and religious groupings in Syria than Libya, with the potential for even more unforeseen consequences. Adding to the volatile mix in Syria are its neighbours: Israel, Lebanon, with the Shia militia Hizbollah allied to Syria's president Bashar al-Assad, and Iraq. There is a risk that the country could disintegrate, splitting into two or three unwieldy pieces, making an already unstable region even more dangerous.
In any crisis, there is an inevitable chorus of "something must be done" – as hear now from Senators McCain and Feinstein. But doing something can often be much worse than doing nothing.In any crisis, there is an inevitable chorus of "something must be done" – as hear now from Senators McCain and Feinstein. But doing something can often be much worse than doing nothing.
Yes, Obama has been left looking weak by declaring a red line and then failing to act. But rushing to action now would compound that mistake.
 		Yes, Obama has been left looking weak by declaring a red line and then failing to act. But rushing to action now would compound that mistake.
 
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.