I
once wrote an article about the supposed “red line” issued by President Obama
over the usage of chemical weapons in Syria and the president’s lack of
action. I worried then and still do now
that the lack of action sent the wrong message.
Whether action should be taken or not is no longer the question for the
president has already committed us to action.
The question is, when, where and how should that action now
proceed? Once more, the Syrian
government has unleashed an even heavier and deadlier attack of Sarin gas. President Bashar al-Assad jabbed the sleeping
giant and it growled and snarled but ultimately, went back to sleep. Now, he has done it again and if we do not
respond, it could have catastrophic effects.
As
the Syrian conflict first erupted a couple of years ago, the president
suggested, as we tangled ourselves in Libya, that we had no interest in the
conflict and would not join or assist in the fight. Some observers wondered why Libya and not Syria
but the Americans were in agreement – we had our fill of getting involved in
the internal conflicts of Middle Eastern countries. Then, there was intelligence that suggested
Mr. Assad could use chemical weapons against those who opposed his
government. The U.S., along with Israel,
declared chemical weapons to be a Rubicon that could not be crossed without a
response. Syria did and the U.S. decided
that their “red line” was not as definite has had been suggested. Recently, Mr. Obama suggested the “red line”
was still in place and he would not tolerate the usage of chemical
weapons. Syria did and the president has
taken an interesting stance.
Earlier
this past week, it seemed as if the U.S. was on the precipice of committing
military action in Syria against the Assad regime and its chemical
capabilities. The president mentioned
imminent action in an interview; the Secretary of State John Kerry delivered an
impassioned case for the need to do something now. The White House press secretary also
suggested that the president had the power to do something now. However, in the last twenty-four hours, the
president and his administration have taken a different tone. Now, the president declares that he will wait
until the Congress is back in session (about a week from now) and communicate
and work with them to get congressional input.
There
are a couple of things that I should add as a caveat. One, the president is in possession of
intelligence that no one else knows which might explain his actions or lack
thereof. Yet, as I said before, it begs
the question of why the president has come out so strongly against Syria if
evidence or intelligence would suggest a murkier picture. Second, the Congress has been harping,
rightfully so, that it needs to recapture some of its authority as it relates
to the president’s power. However, this
is not the time to appeal to Congress and help them regain their authority if
the situation requires more immediate action.
Lastly, the president is on the verge of emboldening forces that are carefully
watching his actions – Mr. Assad, Hezbollah (the Shi’a extremists who operate
in Syria and Lebanon) and Iran. They are
all watching things carefully and determining what to do next.
Again,
no one outside the White House has the complete picture yet, what can been seen
is the impact of the decisions being made by the administration. The president needs to know that off-the-cuff
remarks and the need to say something at every turn has created some
unnecessary quagmires. At this point,
the U.S. needs to follow an acta non
verba policy and in the future, the administration needs to be more
discipline regarding what they say about foreign issues. It is not helping the administration and it certainly
is not helping the United States.
No comments:
Post a Comment