Obama Close to Intervening in Syria

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright April 26, 2013
All Rights Reserved.                                         

          Claiming that 47-year-old Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used Sarin nerve gas, Syria’s rebel factions hoped that President Barack Obama would finally make good on his promise to intervene militarily.  Losing over 70,000 civilian lives since the revolt started March 11, 2011, former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urged Obama to consider military action.  While Hillary left office Jan. 20, 2013, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) also urged Barack March 5, 2013 to start bombing Syria.  Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel acknowledged that Defense Intelligence Agency sources believe al-Assad probably used chemical weapons repelling rebel forces.  “Our intelligence community does assess, with varying degrees of confidence, that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent Sarin,” said Hagel prompting Obama to warn al-Assad.

Reluctant to intervene in Syria’s civil war, Obama indicated that a Sarin nerve gas attack by al-Assad would cross a “red line” for the U.S.  Calling the use of chemical weapons a “game-changer,” Barack hinted that he’s close to intervening, at least on some level, in Syria.  Complicating the picture are multiple unknown factions seeking to topple the al-Assad government. Hillary make it clear that she saw al-Assad’s days as numbered, though wouldn’t say how the U.S. could help the rebels drive al-Assad out.  Obama resisted Hillary and McCain’s calls to intervene because al-Assad’s replacement could be far more radical and destabilizing to the region.  White House and State Department officials, now under the direction of Secretary of State John Kerry, are acutely aware the so-called “Arab Spring” pro-Democracy movement hasn’t panned out.  Tunisia, Egypt and Libya are less stable now than before toppling their old dictators.

With North Korea making waves in Asia, and the outcome in Afghanistan and Iraq still hanging  in the balance, starting another front could weaken U.S. national security.  Limping back to life after the worst recession since the Great Depression, the U.S. economy cannot afford another unending war.  Former President George W. Bush, who only yesterday opened his presidential library at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas, wants to highlight his accomplishments, offering justifications for intervening in Iraq and Afghanistan.  When the economy crashed in 2007-08, causing the worst recession since the Great Depression, Columbia University’s Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph I. Stiglitz blamed the mess on the two wars.  Before leaping feet first in Syria, Obama must ask the probable effects on the U.S . economy, not to mention obvious risks to the U.S. military, including more deaths and permanent disabilities

If the April 15 Boston Marathon bombings taught anything, it’s that human flesh is easily mangled in even para-War-like conditions like terrorism.  If terrorists on the battlefield are booby-trapping  roads with Improvised Explosive Devices the body count racks up very quickly.  When Barack decided to listen to former Centcom Commander Gen. David Petraeus and surge 40,000 more troops in Afghanistan in March 2009, casualty rates quadrupled, causing more deaths and permanent injuries.  With multiple unknown factions seeking to topple al-Assad, no one really knows what new government would emerge.  Al-Qaeda, radical Palestinians and other jihadist groups are currently waging a bloody insurgency against the al-Assad regime.  Russia and China, both close al-Assad’s allies, oppose any attempt by the U.S. or its allies to topple the al-Assad regime.   U.S. military intervention in Syria would cross “red lines” for Russia and China.

Reluctant to join calls from conservatives on Capitol Hill to bomb al-Assad, Barack has shown he understands the bigger picture in Syria.  While Hagel commented al-Assad’s chemical weapons use, “it violates very convention of warfare,” Obama has asked for more proof before considering other options.  “Because the president takes this issue seriously, we have an obligation to fully investigate any and all evidence of chemical weapons use within Syria,” said White House Legislative Director Michael Rodriguez, knowing the gravity of the situation.  Even if reliable independent sources verify al-Assad’s use of Sarin, or any other banned agent, the U.S. must consult with Russia, China and NATO before acting unilaterally.  Bombing al-Assad into exile solves nothing if a radical Islamic regime, more hostile to the U.S., takes over in Syria.  Obama knows that there are red line and there red lines, and this is not a red line for U.S. national security.

By “game changer,” Barack knows that the U.S. economy can’t take on another Mideast country’s problems, certainly not a nation-building that would happen in any significant  military action.  Bombing a foreign government carries with it a heavy burden as Bush found out toppling Saddam Hussein April 10, 2003.  Ten years later, 4,886 U.S. soldiers lost, 25,000 more with permanent injuries and nearly $2 trillion wasted, Obama can’t afford to make the same mistake.  Keeping the U.S. military and economy intact,, there’s a lot a stake crossing so-called “red lines.”  “That is going to be a game changer.  We have to act prudently,” said Obama, signaling, that he won’t do anything without consulting with all relevant parties.  “We have made these assessments deliberately.  But I think all of us . . . recognize how we cannot stand by and permit the systematic  use of weapons like chemical weapons on civilian populations,” said Obama, showing appropriate caution.