By Danielle Pletka, Special to CNN
Editor’s note: Danielle Pletka is the vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. The views expressed are her own.
The White House admitted Thursday what has been known for some time: The Syrian regime used chemical weapons to attack its own people. But “admitted” isn’t exactly the right word; more like equivocated that the al-Assad government could have, might have, somehow let loose some sarin nerve gas, which could have, but may not have, “exposed” some Syrians, possibly, to chemical agents. Maybe.
The history on this question is a little convoluted: The opposition first accused the al-Assad regime of using chemical agents some time ago, but those accusations were, for the most part, dismissed by the White House. Only yesterday, Defense secretary Chuck Hagel downplayed the charges, saying that, “Suspicions are one thing; evidence is another.” But one nation after another, most recently Israel, made clear that they had little doubt that al-Assad’s regime did in fact employ lethal chemical weapons in an attack on its own people. So, by early on April 25, the White House too allowed that it appear sarin was indeed used.
Here’s the problem for President Barack Obama: In 2012, he said the use of chemical weapons is a “red line” for the United States, a “game changer” that would theoretically move the White House from its position of committed indifference to the ongoing conflict in Syria. Under increasing pressure during the presidential election, Obama sought out a clear position on Syria that would make him appear cautious, yet decisive. Hence, the red line. But with the election won, he stepped back from his earlier decisiveness to a more fuzzy expression of concern, with vague threats that in the event of chemical weapons use, the Syrian government would be “held accountable.”
Now that red line/accountable moment has arrived. Earlier reports about the use of chlorine gas (a chemical weapon, but not explicitly banned) have given way to clear reports about the use of sarin, a nerve agent specifically prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention. So what has the administration done? First, downplayed the reports. Is sarin use “credible” and “corroborated”? Was sarin “used”, or were Syrians simply “exposed”? Would al-Assad really use just a little sarin? Why not the whole hog? And of course, there are the magic three words on which so many momentous decisions rest: Did the Syrian regime use “a whole bunch” of chemical weapons? Because President Obama was clear that they needed to move or use “a whole bunch” before any red line was crossed. So instead of reacting angrily and threatening repercussions, as he once promised, the Obama administration mildly remonstrated with al-Assad, warning against “any additional use,” because, you know, next time we’ll really mean it.
More from CNN: Rebel group's dangerous ties to al Qaeda
This administration has mastered the art of defining deviancy down – particularly when it comes to the deviancy of rogue states and WMD (read Iran, North Korea, Syria). What should Obama do? Work more seriously toward the formation of a Syrian government in exile. Begin the process of arming moderates among the Syrian rebels, something both the United Kingdom and France have already urged. Take out Syrian air power, being used to attack the Syrian population and resupply the Syrian military. Take out scud launchers. Create a humanitarian corridor, a far easier task once Syrian airpower is disabled. These are DOABLE goals, requiring no boots on the ground. And while sorting the moderates from the Qatar-backed terrorists fighting al-Assad is getting harder and harder, surely such a job is not beyond the grasp of the United States of America.
What are our interests? Al-Assad is Iran’s most important ally. A wholesale collapse of Syria will reverberate through the region, most directly affecting Syria’s neighbors – Turkey, Lebanon, Israel and Iraq. It is better to try to manage the situation before it becomes a regional conflagration that requires more U.S. involvement.
Syria is a stain on Obama’s record. It is a disgrace that America will not soon live down. And perhaps most important to this most self-regarding of presidents, allowing a tin pot tyrant of al-Assad’s caliber to ignore a red line laid down by the president of the United States sends a message to every other would be adversary: a threat from Barack Obama means very little. Very little indeed.
One of the reasons niche blogging is better than general blogging is because if you choose a specific subject, that helps to establish you as an expert. Once people consider you an expert on a topic, they are more likely to visit your blog for the specific information you can provide.'-
The Global Public Square is where you can make sense of the world every day with insights and explanations from CNN's Fareed Zakaria, leading journalists at CNN, and other international thinkers. Join GPS editor Jason Miks and get informed about global issues, exposed to unique stories, and engaged with diverse and original perspectives.
Every week we bring you in-depth interviews with world leaders, newsmakers and analysts who break down the world's toughest problems.
CNN U.S.: Sundays 10 a.m. & 1 p.m ET | CNN International: Find local times
Buy the GPS mug | Books| Transcripts | Audio
Connect on Facebook | Twitter | GPS@cnn.com
Buy past episodes on iTunes! | Download the audio podcast
Check out all of Fareed's Washington Post columns here:
Obama as a foreign policy president?
Why Snowden should stand trial in U.S.
Hillary Clinton's truly hard choice
China's trapped transition
Obama should rethink Syria strategy
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
RSS - Posts
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 4,863 other followers