When a Red Line Isn’t

Il nous faut de l’audace, et encore de l’audace, et toujours de l’audace (We must have audacity, and again audacity, and every day audacity).
            Georges Danton, French revolutionary

Earlier this year, President Obama spoke with uncharacteristic frankness and unequivocally laid out the nature of possible American involvement in Syria.  Meanwhile, the world watched.  Would the Syrians be so daring as to unleash chemical weapons with such an explicit threat laid down by the president of the United States?  Meanwhile, Israel laid out its own red line, along the same criterion as the president.  Should the Syrian government use chemical weapons on its own people, it would respond.  Both the U.S. and Israel declared a “red line” drawn and should it be crossed, it promised military action.  The response has been telling. 

By April of this year, stories leaked that the besieged Syrian government had possibly done just that.  Once there was sufficient evidence of the chemical attack, President Obama equivocated by suggesting that his “red line” was not analogous to military action.  Israel, upon its “red line” being crossed, sent jets into Syria and bombed some of its research facilities for chemical weapons.  As Geddy Lee of the band Rush once said, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”  Both say something revealing.  From an international perspective, which lies beyond the partisan posturing within which American politicians often wallow, the message is that Israel is decisive and to be taken seriously and the U.S. is not. 

Throughout U.S. history, there have been warnings that stem from dithering presidents – Franklin Roosevelt in Spain, John F. Kennedy in Cuba, Jimmy Carter in Iran, to name a few.  Therefore, President Obama finds himself at a crossroads that demand action.  The rhetorical gymnastics the Obama administration has done in explaining its inaction to the American press and public is not perceived the same way to international brutes and savages.  Bashar al-Assad and his government, while beleaguered on many levels by rebels, fundamentalists and now Israel, is not concerned with the United States. 

What does this mean for the United States?  If we proclaim to hold some sort of international mandate and authority to act in defense of the defenseless around the world, we must first put ourselves in a position to be taken seriously.  The more we fail to act on our principles, the more decayed we become.  The more we concern ourselves with the perception of our country and our goals, the more we will miss opportunities to do something right. 

Some might perceive an action by the Americans as threatening a widening of the conflict but I believe that to be entirely in the hands of the Assad regime.  Take the Israeli action for example.  What can Syria do?  They have suggested, as reported by al-Jazeera, that the Israeli military is in cahoots with Islamic fundamentalists but I can’t imagine there will be much traction from such an accusation.  They cannot fire upon the Israeli military or into Israel for fear of widening the conflict.  They cannot handle the rebels in their own country, much less the most sophisticated military force in the Middle East.   

It is quite possible that there is intelligence that is preventing the president from acting as he said he would months ago.  Unfortunately, either the Obama administration erred when they set the red line or they erred in deciding not to uphold such an ultimatum.  Either way, the administration is in a dangerous spot.  The war-weary people of Syria needed help a long time ago but inaction then does not justify inaction now.  We must do the good work to help the ordinary Syrians before the Assad military regime completely obliterates them.  One might think we are hated now – how is the situation served better by refusing to help those in need?