Obama's "Red Lines" Show Wisdom in Syria

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright May 2, 2013
All Rights Reserved.                                         

      Refusing to get boxed into a corner or pushed into military action in Syria, 52-year-old President Barack Obama told a April 30 White House press conference that he needed more definitive information about Syria’s use of chemical weapons before taking decisive action   Mired in a bloody civil war since March 2011, 47-year-old Syrian President Bashar al-Assad mobilized his military to resist largely Wahhabi Sunni rebels seeking to topple his Alawite Shiite regime.  After working hard to extricate the U.S. military from Iraq and Afghanistan, the president is reluctant to jump back into a sticky wicket of another Arab civil war, likely to cause anarchy and hand regional control to a bevy of terrorist groups.  When former President George W. Bush toppled Saddam Hussein April 10, 2003, the power vacuum opened the floodgates to a variety of Sunni terror groups, especially al-Qaeda.

            Ruluctant to repeat the same mistakes as Bush, Obama showed caution listening to hawks on Capitol Hill, especially Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), calling for bombing Syria to setting up a no-fly zone in Syria to protect rebel forces and civilians currently under al-Assad’s siege.  When Obama talks of “red lines,” his critics have accused him of moving the goal posts on using of force.  Those same critics that supported the Iraq War cost the U.S. military 4,886 lives and nearly $2 trillion tax dollars, causing the worst recession since the Great Depression.  With the collective U.S. business community working hard to crawl out of the Great Recession, Obama knows the economy can’t afford another costly boondoggle.  Without definitive proof of al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons, it’s going to be difficult persuading the Russians and Chinese to back military action against their historic trading partner.

            Obama doesn’t have to look to far into the future to see a picture of Syria with al-Assad gone.  He needs to look no further that neighboring Iraq where a U.S. led invasion March 30, 2003 opened up the terrorist floodgates and 10 years later deals with an ineffectual U.S.-backed government that can’t stop today’s widespread suicide bombing and sectarian strife.  Without al-Assad’s iron grip, the Russians and Chinese understand that Syria faces the same anarchy as Iraq, Libya, and to a lesser extent Egpyt.  Iraq stands a glaring failure of an ill-conceived U.S. foreign policy led by former President George W. Bush, intent on democratizing the Middle East in the wake of Sept. 11.  Democracy doesn’t work in former authoritarian regimes or monarchies where tyrannical control maintains stability.  Former Bush officials blame Obama for not committing endless resources to Iraq.

            Speaking about how chemical weapons use would be a “game changer,” Obama tried to tamp down the drum beat to war, recognizing the sacrifices made of the U.S. military and American taxpayers from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.  Whatever happens with al-Assad’s civil war, U.S. military intervention would potentially open up a can of worms, much like Afghanistan and Iraq.  With nearly 6,000 American war dead and over $2 trillion spent, the U.S. military can’t claim to have fixed age-old ethnic divisions and sectarian strife.  “If I can establish in a way that not only the United States but also the international community feel confident in the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, then that is a game-changer,” said Obama, hedging on military action over objections from the same conservatives in Congress that wholeheartedly backed the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars.

            Pro-bombing conservatives like McCain insist that U.S. credibility is on the line in Syria.  Yet U.S. credibility plummeted when Bush invaded Iraq, precisely because the U.S. didn’t have strong international backing.  Unlike Bush back in 2003, Obama has returned from the “preemptive war” standard back to the U.S. national security benchmark.  Bush tried but failed to make the national security argument in Iraq, especially after Saddam’s alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction didn’t pan out.  Whatever Syria’s death toll, it’s not up to the U.S. to play world policeman.  Opening up a new battlefront in Syria would expose the U.S. military and American taxpayers to more unseen catastrophe.  Bombing al-Assad out of power would not assure more lives would be saved.  Causing anarchy among competing terrorist groups could expose Syria to even higher death rates.

            Obama’s instincts to keep the U.S. out of Syria stem from a common sense recognition of what went amiss in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey doubt that the U.S. could pull off an effective “no-fly” zone in Syria to protect civilians.  Demsey told the Christian Science Monitor that he doubted that the U.S. military could turn around the violence and stabilize Syria.  “Despite the moral, humanitarian and strategic arguments for intervention, Syria is a trap that threatens to suck external powers in and shackle them with responsibility for war-making, peacekeeping and a reconstruction effort that could eventually involve thousands of boots on the ground and billions of dollars in assistance,” Mideast expert Aaron David Miller, agreeing with Obama’s approach to avoid military intervention.  Looking back to the future tells the real story.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com.and author of Dodging the Bullet and Operation Charisma.