Obama a victim of his own rhetoric

Obama a victim of his own rhetoric

President Barack Obama, though he artfully articulated the need to respond to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, is haunted by his own actions and words.
With no good options, the president made a persuasive case over the weekend for taking action against the “heinous” crime of chemical warfare, and assured a war-weary nation that any military mission would be “limited in duration and scope.”

An immediate response was ruled out, however, as the administration sent Congress a draft resolution authorizing the use of force in Syria, even though that is likely to entail an ugly debate involving attacks on the administration’s policies and credibility from the political left and the right. But acting now and alone – the U.K. has dropped out of any coalition of the willing, and the United Nations is calling for delay – would have been worse. There is lingering resentment about Obama’s stretching of the interpretation of the executive’s war powers and brushing aside Congress in the campaign to topple Moammar Gadhafi in Libya in 2011. An NBC News poll published Aug. 30 found that almost 80 percent of the public wanted congressional approval for any military action in Syria.

Obama also is a victim of his own rhetoric. He first drew a “red line” last year, vowing that any use of weapons of mass destruction by Bashar al-Assad would be unacceptable. It seems clear, say lawmakers who’ve been briefed, that Assad ordered the most recent attack, and it wasn’t the first. Critics of intervention are now asking, if we strike now, what do we do when Assad does it again
Given that history, the U.K. Parliament’s refusal last week to support military action in Syria may seem wrong, but not irrational.

Former U.S. Defense Secretary Bill Cohen, one of many former top officials who are rarely consulted by this White House (he ran the Pentagon during the Kosovo air attacks in 1999), worries that the president’s plans for Syria are merely tactical, without a clear strategic objective or mission. Has the administration, for instance, seriously considered the likelihood that Russia and Iran will resupply Assad immediately after a strike? Will anything the U.S. does, Cohen wonders, make Assad think, “Hey, we might lose this thing, let’s negotiate a settlement.” Others worry about being dragged into a protracted engagement.  “Unless the administration gets real lucky, they’re in a terrible box,” says Aaron David Miller, a longtime U.S. diplomat. The president has to respond, he says, though there is the danger of “an incremental drip by drip intervention.” That would be a disaster. After Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. voters won’t tolerate another war unless critical national interests are at stake.

No credible claim on "critical national interest" has been made.  This doesn’t suggest a retreat is in order today. It is a reminder to avoid setting red lines unless the consequences are carefully considered and we understand the politics of the Middle East are worse, and more dangerous, than ever. 

Nearly 93,000 people have been confirmed killed since Syria's civil war began more than two years ago, the U.N. said Thursday, a sharp rise in the death toll as the fighting turns increasingly sectarian and the carnage gripping the country appears unstoppable.

So Mr. President, why now and not then?  Dead is dead, the means to them and their loved ones does not matter.