海角大神

For President Obama, the Syrian regime鈥檚 possible use of chemical weapons brings with it a political dilemma that can be summed up in two words: 鈥淪lam dunk.鈥�

That was what then-CIA director George Tenet told the Bush White House about Iraq鈥檚 alleged possession of 鈥渨eapons of mass destruction鈥� (WMD).

It was a phrase Mr. Tenet came to regret, asserting that others in the administration twisted its intended use 鈥� that building public support for a US-led invasion of Iraq would be easy 鈥� to make the CIA (and him in particular) the scapegoat when no WMD were found.

But Tenet admitted in his 2007 book 鈥淎t the Center of the Storm鈥� that 鈥渢here was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat,鈥� nor any in-depth discussion of possible alternatives to military invasion.

Fast-forward ten years since the beginning of the Iraq War 鈥� which has cost 4,486 US military fatalities, plus at least several hundred US civilian contractors killed in Iraq 鈥� and 鈥淚raq has informed every part of this debate鈥� over Syria, writes Amy Davidson in the New Yorker.

The headline on a Politico piece reads: 鈥淚raq haunts President Obama鈥檚 Syria choices.鈥�

鈥淭he ghosts of the Iraq War weigh heavily on the president and his top advisers handling the Syria crisis, according to former officials and analysts close to the administration,鈥� writes Politico鈥檚 Josh Gerstein. 鈥淭hey don鈥檛 want to get it wrong. They don鈥檛 want to move too quickly. They don鈥檛 want to spend the second term getting embroiled in toppling another Middle East dictator and cleaning up the aftermath after spending the first term getting untangled from the last war.鈥�

It鈥檚 a specter with implications for Obama鈥檚 legacy; by nearly 2-to-1, Americans don鈥檛 think the war in Iraq was worth the cost.

In fact, Obama already has had a sort-of 鈥渟lam dunk鈥� moment with his assertion that the Assad regime鈥檚 use of chemical weapons against Syrian rebels would constitute the crossing of an unacceptable 鈥渞ed line,鈥� with the implied warning that the US might then initiate a military response.

Has that red line been crossed?

"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," the White House said in a letter to members of Congress this week.

The operative phrase here seems to be 鈥渟mall scale,鈥� suggesting that the red line may have been nudged but not fully crossed. Speaking to reporters before meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah in the Oval Office Friday Obama implied as much.

"Knowing that there's chemical weapons in Syria doesn't tell us when they were used or how they were used," he said.

"To use weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations crosses another line in terms of international norms and laws 鈥� that's going to be a game changer,鈥� Obama said. 鈥淔or the Syrian Government to use chemical weapons on its people will change my calculus.鈥�

It鈥檚 worth noting that Obama鈥檚 initial use of 鈥渞ed line鈥� regarding Syria left room for maneuver.

Last summer, he warned that 鈥渁 red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.鈥�

Although critics may see it as waffling, there is a clear difference between 鈥渟mall scale鈥� and 鈥渁 whole bunch鈥� of chemical weapons being used. And as Time magazine鈥檚 defense expert Mark Thompson notes, 鈥溾�楽ome degree of varying confidence鈥� is a loophole big enough to fly a cruise missile through.鈥�
听
听But what Obama said Friday was far less than more hawkish lawmakers wanted to hear. 鈥淒isappointing but predictable statement by the President on #Syria today,鈥� Senator John McCain (R) of Arizona tweeted.

"The president clearly stated that it was a red line and that it couldn't be crossed without the United States taking vigorous action,鈥� Sen. McCain told Fox News earlier in the week. 鈥淭hat action should be a safe zone for the Syrian opposition to operate in Syria, weapons to the right people in Syria, and neutralizing the air capability of Bashar Assad."

"It's a red line that's been crossed,"听Senator Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina said on CNN.听"So the question is what's next?"

What鈥檚 next is a lot of soul-searching by civilian and military officials, including for some a review of history regarding other controversial intelligence assessments 鈥� as Time鈥檚 Thompson does going back to the controversial (and largely discredited)Tonkin Gulf Resolution giving President Lyndon Johnson the authority to conduct war in Vietnam without formal declaration.

Meanwhile, Obama鈥檚 鈥渞ed line鈥� stands, along with the 鈥渧arying degrees of confidence鈥� among US intelligence agencies regarding Syria鈥檚 use of chemical weapons.

鈥淭he trouble with statements like that is you can get drawn into military operations,鈥� retired Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni told Time magazine.

Which is the circumstance the Obama administration now finds itself in.