Obama 'red line' on Syrian chemical weapons gets a bit grayer
President Obama has said Syria's use of chemical weapons would be a 'red line.' Evidence is mounting, but Obama's desire for an international response throws prospects for action into doubt.
President Obama answers questions during his news conference in the White House in Washington Tuesday. He said he'd consider military action against Syria if it can be confirmed that President Bashar al-Assad's government used chemical weapons in the country's civil war.
Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP
Washington
President Obama on Tuesday appeared to rule out any unilateral US intervention in Syria no matter what the ongoing investigation of chemical weapons use there reveals 鈥� a position that conforms to Mr. Obama鈥檚 strong preference for collective action in the international arena, but one that could also lower the prospects for intervention.
Speaking at a White House press conference, the president said that not the US alone but the 鈥渋nternational community鈥� as well has to be confident in the evidence that the regime of President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons before action can be taken.
Obama again used the word 鈥済ame changer鈥� to define what the proven use of chemical weapons would constitute for him, but his reference to the international community hinted at what he may be envisioning if intervention becomes necessary.
鈥淚f I can establish, in a way that not only the United States but also the international community feel confident is the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, then that is a game changer,鈥� Obama said.
In a second reference to some eventual collective action in Syria, Obama said a hasty determination of the who, what, and where of chemical weapons use in Syria could make it more difficult to assemble a broad coalition to take action.
鈥淚f we rush to judgment without hard evidence,鈥� he said the US 鈥渃ould find ourselves unable to mobilize the international community.鈥澛犅�
Obama鈥檚 words stand in stark contrast to the 鈥済o it alone鈥� stance of President George W. Bush, who tried to convince the international community to join the US in invading Iraq, but who in the end went ahead with a reduced 鈥渃oalition of the willing.鈥�
In public comments on Syria, the Obama administration has repeatedly made veiled references to the Iraq invasion 鈥� and to the Bush administration鈥檚 insistence upon what turned out to be faulty intelligence concerning Saddam Hussein鈥檚 stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.
Obama has said since last August that any use or transfer of Syria鈥檚 chemical weapons would constitute a 鈥渞ed line鈥� for the US, but he has not specified what US action would follow.
At a lunch with reporters hosted by the Monitor Tuesday, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Pentagon has been preparing a range of options for the president since last year. Asked about the possibility of establishing a no-fly zone over parts of Syria, General Dempsey said it would be more difficult than in the case of Libya, but he said it could be done.
He noted, however, that recent estimates indicate that Syrian air power is responsible for only about 10 percent of the war鈥檚 casualties, suggesting that a no-fly zone might do little to reduce Syria鈥檚 violence. The UN estimates that more than 70,000 Syrians have died in the war that started as pro-democracy protests in March 2011.
Obama鈥檚 reference to 鈥渕obilizing the international community鈥� over proven chemical-weapons use was viewed by some critics as setting an even higher bar for intervention.
Russia and China, which have blocked United Nations Security Council action on Syria, show no signs of softening their opposition to outside intervention. That could force Obama to act outside of the UN 鈥� a step he seems reluctant to take 鈥� if he ends up with 鈥渉ard evidence鈥� of Mr. Assad's regime using chemical weapons.
In his comments Tuesday, Obama hinted at the justification he might use if he has to do an end run around the UN. If the chemical weapons 鈥済enie" is proven to be 鈥渙ut of the bottle,鈥� he said, that could portend 鈥減otentially even more devastating attacks on civilians.鈥�
But beyond that, he said, proof of their use 鈥渞aises the strong possibility that those chemical weapons can fall into the wrong hands and get disseminated in ways that would threaten US security or the security of our allies.鈥�
That sounds like Obama could eventually decide to try to mobilize something less than the full 鈥渋nternational community鈥� for a Syria intervention.
One option might be NATO, which served as the umbrella for the Western intervention in Libya in 2011.
Last week, Secretary of State John Kerry seemed to hint that a NATO role in Syria could be part of an international response to proven chemical weapons use.
In remarks to NATO foreign ministers in Brussels, Secretary Kerry said NATO partners should 鈥渃arefully and collectively consider how NATO is prepared to respond to protect its members from a Syrian threat, including any potential chemical weapons threat.鈥�