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.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
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.
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.
-
Weapons: Julia Garner stars in 'hyper-eerie' psychological thrillerThe Week Recommends Zach Cregger's 'top notch' new film opens with 17 children disappearing at exactly the same time
-
Freakier Friday: Lohan and Curtis reunite for 'uneven' but 'endearing' sequelThe Week Recommends Mother-and-daughter comedy returns with four characters switching bodies
-
Al fresco art: the UK's best sculpture parksThe Week Recommends Soak up the scenery with a stroll through these open-air galleries
-
Putin’s threat to fracture Ukrainefeature Fears that Russia was building a pretext for an invasion of eastern Ukraine grew, as pro-Kremlin protesters occupied government buildings in three cities.
-
Curbing NSA surveillance
feature The White House said it will propose a broad overhaul of the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program.
-
Downsizing the military
feature A new budget plan for the Pentagon would save hundreds of billions of dollars by taking the military off its post-9/11 war footing.
-
Putin ratchets up pressure on Ukraine
feature Russian President Vladimir Putin put 150,000 troops at the Ukraine border on high alert and cut off $15 billion in financial aid.
-
Ukraine on the brink of civil war
feature Ukraine’s capital was engulfed in flames and violence when hundreds of riot police launched an assault on an anti-government protest camp.
-
Ukraine at the breaking point
feature An alliance of opposition groups vowed protests would continue until President Viktor Yanukovych is removed from power.
-
Dim prospects for Syrian talks
feature A long-awaited Syrian peace conference in Montreux, Switzerland, quickly degenerated into a cross fire of bitter accusations.
-
The fight over jobless benefits
feature A bill to restore federal benefits for the long-term unemployed advanced when six Republican senators voted with Democrats.