Obama weighs U.S. options in Syria

What happened

President Obama was reportedly moving this week toward supplying weapons to rebels in Syria,as evidence mounted that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had resorted to chemical weapons. Obama has said since last year that the use of chemical weapons would constitute “a red line” for the U.S. Last week the White House said it had reason to believe, “with varying degrees of confidence,” that the banned nerve agent sarin had been used in Syria, as France, the U.K., and Israel have recently asserted. In a White House press conference this week, Obama said the U.S. government had not yet confirmed “a chain of custody that establishes exactly what happened,” and still had to exclude the possibility that rebel groups used the poison gas, as the government contends. “If I can establish the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime in a way that the U.S. and international community can be sure of, that is a game changer,” said Obama.

Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham called on Obama to lay out a clear line of action. “Assad has crossed the president’s red line,” they said. “Unfortunately, the red line has been blurred with each passing day.” Meanwhile the conflict in Syria intensified in Damascus this week, as two large bombs exploded in the capital. The Syrian prime minister narrowly escaped the first attack, which killed nine people, and a second bomb a day later killed at least 13 people and injured scores of others. No group claimed responsibility for the blasts, which the Syrian government blamed on “terrorists.”

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

What the editorials said

We’re beginning to wish Obama had never issued his famous red line warning, said The Wall Street Journal. What’s the point, if he intends to “do nothing” when Assad crosses it? “A red line once set should mean something,” said BostonHerald.com. But Obama continues to “yammer” about needing more proof. If he fails to act, it will signal to Iran and North Korea that they can ignore him.

“For all their exhortations,” said The New York Times, the hawks shouting for intervention have no coherent plan of their own—specifically, one that wouldn’t involve “dragging the United States into another extended and costly war.” There are no easy options in Syria, and Obama is right to move with caution.

What the columnists said

Obama brought this dilemma on himself, said Richard Cohen in The Washington Post. Assad’s use of chemical weapons is an absolutely predictable consequence of the White House’s policy—“which is pretty much not to have one.” Obama sat by while at least 70,000 Syrians have been slaughtered, refusing to arm the rebels or impose a no-fly zone because he doesn’t want to get involved in another war in the Middle East. Well, in case he hasn’t noticed, “one is already underway in Syria,” and America and its allies are losing. It’s still not too late, said Lionel Beehner in USAToday.com. If Obama installs a no-fly zone or arms those rebels we can trust, the U.S. can help “forge a peaceful future in the region.” If he doesn’t, the message is “loud and clear”: The U.S. is happy to let the Middle East become a “cesspool of violence and anti-Americanism for generations,” and aspiring despots should feel free to use WMDs at will.

That all sounds noble in theory, said David Horsey in the Los Angeles Times, but getting involved in Syria’s civil war will have many unintended consequences. What do we do if our pilots are shot down by Syria’s sophisticated air defenses and taken hostage, or our weapons fall into the hands of jihadists like the pro–al Qaida Jabhat al-Nusra? “Not too many years ago,” we armed the Afghan rebels against the Soviets. Those rebels became the Taliban. Do we really need to repeat this mistake?

Every argument for American involvement in Syria shares the same fault, said Greg Scoblete in RealClearPolitics.com. They all treat the fall of Assad as the end of the problem, “when in fact it would be just the beginning.” Toppling the tyrant would present a whole new set of questions: Who will stop Iran from hijacking the new government? Who will protect the Alawites and other minorities from reprisal killings? Heartbreaking as the situation in Syria is, if we can’t answer these questions, we’d best stay out.