海角大神

[Updated 11 a.m. EDT] President Obama on Wednesday said that the credibility of Congress and the world is on the line in the debate over how to respond to the Syrian government鈥檚 alleged use of chemical weapons on its own people.

Mr. Obama said that he did not set a 鈥渞ed line鈥� against chemical weapons use by himself. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the globe鈥檚 population agreed to a treaty that called such weapons abhorrent and banned their use, even in war, according to the US chief executive.

鈥淐ongress set a red line when it ratified the treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated 鈥� in a piece of legislation called the Syria Accountability act 鈥� that some of the horrendous things that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for,鈥� Obama said at a news conference in Stockholm, where he is meeting with Sweden's prime minister.

Asking Congress to vote on the issue is a means to get lawmakers and the American public as a whole invested in a tough choice, the president said.

The experience of recent US involvement in conflicts shows that otherwise, 鈥淐ongress will sit on the sidelines and snipe," Obama said. "If it works, the sniping will be a little less. If it doesn鈥檛, a little more, but either way, the American people and their representatives are not fully invested in what are tough choices. And we as a country and the world are going to start to have to take tough choices.鈥�

In framing the issue as one in which responsibility should be shared, the US chief executive is attempting to broaden the terms of debate on one of the most consequential decisions of his presidency.

But he faces a situation in which opposition to his proposed intervention remains widespread among lawmakers and the US public at large. If the main worry of opponents can be summed up in a phrase, it might be this: 鈥渂oots on the ground.鈥�

Skeptics say initial American airstrikes might be limited, but they could well produce unintended consequences in Syria鈥檚 civil war, inevitably drawing US and allied ground troops into a larger conflict.

This view is held by a solid majority of US residents, according to a .聽Seventy-four percent of respondents to the Pew survey said US airstrikes would lead to a backlash against the United States and its allies in the region. Another 61 percent judged airstrikes likely to lead to a long-term military commitment in Syria.

The bottom line: Only 29 percent of respondents favored airstrikes, in Pew鈥檚 survey. Forty-eight percent were opposed, and 23 percent didn鈥檛 know what to do.

The survey 鈥渇inds both broad concern over the possible consequences of military action in Syria and little optimism it will be effective,鈥� says Pew.

Other polls produce similar findings 鈥� a released Tuesday found 59 percent opposition to attacking Syria. US lawmakers have been getting an earful on this issue from constituents during the August recess. That鈥檚 why Secretary of State John Kerry鈥檚 slip on the 鈥渂oots on the ground鈥� question Tuesday attracted a lot of attention.

Asked at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing whether a congressional resolution should contain a prohibition on the deployment of American soldiers to the region, Secretary Kerry said 鈥渘o.鈥�

If Syria imploded, or Syria鈥檚 chemical weapons were about to fall into the hands of terrorists, the US might need to send troops, in Kerry鈥檚 judgment.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country,鈥� said Kerry.

This did not sit well with some lawmakers. Sen. Bob Corker (R) of Tennessee said he did not think it an appropriate response.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 think there are any of us here that are willing to support the possibility of having combat boots on the ground,鈥� said Senator Corker.

Realizing what he鈥檇 done, Kerry quickly backtracked, saying he was speaking only hypothetically.聽鈥淭here will not be American boots on the ground with respect to the civil war,鈥� Kerry said.

Few if any US lawmakers believe the administration is itching to escalate the Syrian situation, given the president鈥檚 apparent ambivalence over any military action there. Those such as Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona who favor more direct US involvement in the effort to topple Syria鈥檚 Bashar al-Assad are frustrated that the White House won鈥檛 do more.

The problem now for the administration is that years of involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts have emphasized the inability of any US president to control conflicts once they鈥檙e started. 鈥淓vents are in the saddle and ride mankind,鈥� according to a quote usually attributed to Ralph Waldo Emerson.

As to how that might play out in Syria, a on US air power options there concludes it would not be an easy matter to achieve American objectives with stand-off munitions alone.

Destroying the Syrian air force would be operationally feasible but would produce only a marginal benefit for Syrian civilians, according to the RAND study. Neutralizing Syrian air defenses would be manageable, but would not be an end in itself.

Establishing safe areas inside Syria would amount to intervention on the side of the opposition, while an air campaign against the Syrian Army would do more to ensure the fall of the Assad regime than to determine its replacement, says RAND. Air power might reduce Mr. Assad鈥檚 ability or desire to use chemical weapons, but eliminating Syrian chemical weapons stocks would require a 鈥渓arge ground operation,鈥� according to RAND.

鈥淓ach of these aerial intervention options has the potential to escalate or expand the conflict to lead to escalatory responses from Assad鈥檚 allies, or to widen or deepen US military involvement. Therefore, anticipating potential next steps after an initial intervention should be central to any strategic planning for using airpower in Syria,鈥� write RAND鈥檚 Karl Mueller, Jeffrey Martini, and Thomas Hamilton.聽