Movement On Syria?
Since I spent yesterday on the subject of Syria, I thought I'd follow up with today's movement and signals from the White House. Don't have any real analysis today, just passing along the recent developments, that's all.
First, President Obama gave a press conference this morning, where the first question he fielded dealt with Syria. Here is the full exchange from the official transcript:
Q: I'm not. A couple of questions on national security. On Syria, you said that the red line was not just about chemical weapons being used but being spread, and it was a game-changer -- it seemed cut and dry. And now your administration seems to be suggesting that line is not clear. Do you risk U.S. credibility if you don't take military action?
And then on Benghazi, there are some survivors of that terror attack who say they want to come forward and testify -- some in your State Department -- and they say they've been blocked. Will you allow them to testify?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, on Syria, I think it's important to understand that for several years now what we've been seeing is a slowly unfolding disaster for the Syrian people. And this is not a situation in which we've been simply bystanders to what's been happening. My policy from the beginning has been that President Assad had lost credibility, that he attacked his own people, has killed his own people, unleashed a military against innocent civilians, and that the only way to bring stability and peace to Syria is going to be for Assad to step down and to move forward on a political transition.
In pursuit of that strategy we've organized the international community. We are the largest humanitarian donor. We have worked to strengthen the opposition. We have provided nonlethal assistance to the opposition. We have applied sanctions on Syria. So there are a whole host of steps that we've been taking precisely because, even separate from the chemical weapons issue, what's happening in Syria is a blemish on the international community generally, and we've got to make sure that we're doing everything we can to protect the Syrian people.
In that context, what I've also said is that the use of chemical weapons would be a game-changer not simply for the United States but for the international community. And the reason for that is that we have established international law and international norms that say when you use these kinds of weapons you have the potential of killing massive numbers of people in the most inhumane way possible, and the proliferation risks are so significant that we don't want that genie out of the bottle. So when I said that the use of chemical weapons would be a game-changer, that wasn't unique to -- that wasn't a position unique to the United States and it shouldn't have been a surprise.
And what we now have is evidence that chemical weapons have been used inside of Syria, but we don't know how they were used, when they were used, who used them. We don't have a chain of custody that establishes what exactly happened. And when I am making decisions about America's national security and the potential for taking additional action in response to chemical weapon use, I've got to make sure I've got the facts. That's what the American people would expect.
And if we end up rushing to judgment without hard, effective evidence, then we can find ourselves in a position where we can't mobilize the international community to support what we do. There may be objections even among some people in the region who are sympathetic with the opposition if we take action. So it's important for us to do this in a prudent way.
And what I've said to my team is we've got to do everything we can to investigate and establish with some certainty what exactly has happened in Syria, what is happening in Syria. We will use all the assets and resources that we have at our disposal. We'll work with the neighboring countries to see whether we can establish a clear baseline of facts. And we've also called on the United Nations to investigate.
But the important point I want to make here is that we already are deeply engaged in trying to bring about a solution in Syria. It is a difficult problem. But even if chemical weapons were not being used in Syria, we'd still be thinking about tens of thousands of people, innocent civilians -- women, children -- who've been killed by a regime that's more concerned about staying in power than it is about the well-being of its people.
And so we are already deeply invested in trying to find a solution here.
What is true, though, is, is that if 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 because what that portends is potentially even more devastating attacks on civilians, and it raises the strong possibility that those chemical weapons can fall into the wrong hands and get disseminated in ways that would threaten U.S. security or the security of our allies.
Q: By game-changer you mean U.S. military action?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: By game-changer I mean that we would have to rethink the range of options that are available to us.
Now, we're already, as I've said, invested in trying to bring about a solution inside of Syria. Obviously, there are options that are available to me that are on the shelf right now that we have not deployed. And that's a spectrum of options. As early as last year, I asked the Pentagon, our military, our intelligence officials to prepare for me what options might be available. And I won't go into the details of what those options might be, but clearly that would be an escalation, in our view, of the threat to the security of the international community, our allies, and the United States, and that means that there are some options that we might not otherwise exercise that we would strongly consider.
Later in the day, however, the White House leaked a story to the Washington Post, which ran it as the headline story on their site. Titled "Obama Preparing To Send Lethal Arms To Syrian Opposition, Officials Say," it goes much further than what Obama said in the presser. While not an official statement of policy, it indicates that Obama feels that the main group of rebels is trustworthy enough to send weapons to, but does not really fully answer the question "what sort of weapons?" in any meaningful way. Because this is really what in politics could be called a "trial balloon," it is rather vague on any number of specifics -- but it does tend to indicate what Obama is leaning towards doing in the near future.
Obama, obviously, doesn't want to make the gross error America made in invading Iraq for non-existent weapons of mass destruction. He's taking his time rather than rushing in. The American people, so far, appear to be behind him in this approach. But with the release of the Washington Post story, it does appear the Obama administration is considering giving the rebels a lot more tangible aid by providing them directly with weapons. Over the next few weeks, we'll see just what exactly this is going to mean.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
"By game-changer I mean that we would have to rethink the range of options that are available to us."
-President Barack Obama
So, let me see if I have this straight...
It's a game "CHANGER" and, since the game is "changed", we have to RETHINK the options we already thought of.
So, in other words, NOTHING really has changed...
We're just rehashing the same things we already hashed.. But we're re-doing it again because the game has "changed"... But even though the game has "changed" we're still going to rethink all the same options we already thunked...
No wonder Obama has such a frak'ed up administration...
With "logic" like that, one has to wonder how Obama can even decide whether to get out of bed in the morning...
Michale
Chris,
I'm glad you're keeping up on this - your piece the other day was a great summary of what the options are.
Judging from the clip you provided here from the press conference today, President Obama and his national security team are approaching this crisis with the prudence and rational thinking that the situation deserves.
Undoubtedly, there is a lot going on behind the scenes that we won't know about for a while. In any event, it's a great feeling to know that Obama/Biden/Hagel/Kerry are in charge as I, for one, have complete confidence in their ability to handle the situation responsibly and with great care.
In any event, it's a great feeling to know that Obama/Biden/Hagel/Kerry are in charge as I, for one, have complete confidence in their ability to handle the situation responsibly and with great care.
Yea, because they have done such a bang-up job so far, eh?? :D
Michale
All of Obama's long-winded and self-serving rhetoric regarding Syria can be summed up in one sentence..
We have fiddle-farted around for two years and 70,000 innocent Syrians have died
Michale
As far as the use or spread of chemical weapons being a "game changer" or "red line" and supplying the opposition fighters with effective arms is concerned it would seem to me that Turkey would be a key player in any decision the US and international community takes on this issue.
Turkey's involvement in the Syrian conflict is already substantial, for obvious reasons. There are more than 300,000 Syrian refugees inside Turkey today and the International Crisis Group estimates this number could triple this year.
Also, according to ICG, Turkey is openly supporting and has stepped up the arming of the opposition fighters and but isn't considering significant military intervention. It really can't change anything in Syria by acting alone but it sounds like Turkey would be fully on board if an international military intervention were to be seriously considered. Though, ICG believes that a protracted stalemate is likely over the medium term.
In any event, this will be a real test of the Obama doctrine. And, critics of the Obama administration's handling of this crisis must outline, in detail, the entire array of possible consequences that may flow from the actions they suggest. Otherwise, their advice is not credible.
http://www.crisisgroup.org
As far as the use or spread of chemical weapons being a "game changer" or "red line" and supplying the opposition fighters with effective arms is concerned it would seem to me that Turkey would be a key player in any decision the US and international community takes on this issue.
Completely agree.. As I indicated previously, any action in Syria begins (and possibly ends) with Turkey...
In any event, this will be a real test of the Obama doctrine. And, critics of the Obama administration's handling of this crisis must outline, in detail, the entire array of possible consequences that may flow from the actions they suggest. Otherwise, their advice is not credible.
MY only critique of the Obama administration is that they established a Red Line and then tried to finagle out of it when it became politically inconvenient..
Take a position and stand by it, fer chreest's sake!
Michale
Michale,
I'm against all publically announced red lines. :)
I'm against all publically announced red lines. :)
Ya know, there is a certain logic to that.. :D
Because putting out ultimatums like that actually LIMIT options..
And, if one has a propensity to fiddle-fart on previous promises, then "red lines" are ultimately self-defeating and leaves one open to ridicule..
Michale
Michale -
So, what exactly would you do if you were (shudder) the president right now?
I bet that any answer you give to that question contradicts one of your complaints about how Obama has handled foreign policy in the past. There simply are no good answers in Syria, and there never have been. All are risky, and the American people don't support most of them.
-CW
Michale,
Chris just summed up the situation perfectly.
When you tell us what you would do, you must also provide us with a complete cost-benefit analysis for each action you would recommend without which your advice will not be very useful.
Michale,
You didn't think this was going to easy, did you? :)
I bet that any answer you give to that question contradicts one of your complaints about how Obama has handled foreign policy in the past. There simply are no good answers in Syria, and there never have been. All are risky, and the American people don't support most of them.
As I said in your prior commentary, you nailed things pretty much perfectly..
There ARE no good answers..
But, as Liz so eloquently pointed out, Obama's mistake is ISSUING the "red line" in the first place...
*MY* complaint over this issue is, and has always been, the fact that Obama neutered himself and American prestige by issuing the "Red Line" and then got all milquetoast when his Red Line was crossed..
But, I'll re-iterate MY plan from the previous commentary...
SF Kill Teams blanketing Syria and given the green light to take out any and all Syrian leadership...
Cut the head off the chicken....
Liz,
You didn't think this was going to easy, did you? :)
I never do... :D
When you tell us what you would do, you must also provide us with a complete cost-benefit analysis for each action you would recommend without which your advice will not be very useful.
What am I, an economist??
"Dammit Jim, I'm a ground-pounder, not an accountant!!"
:D
The one draw back to my plan is that, like cutting the head off a chicken, there are out of control death-spasms that would likely produce undesirable side-effects...
But my plan has the advantage of actually ACCOMPLISHING something beyond the "hand-wringing" and "option/navel gazing" that is so prevalent and desirable in Democrat circles...
Michale
Michale
On another note..
I am constrained to point out that Benghazi is VERY much in the news in the here and now and is likely to become a VERY big headache for the Obama Administration..
Not too shabby for just a "simple protest that went wrong" eh???
Once again, when it comes to these kinds of issues, I call it...
Michale
Michale -
*MY* complaint over this issue is, and has always been, the fact that Obama neutered himself and American prestige by issuing the "Red Line" and then got all milquetoast when his Red Line was crossed
You mean, like Reagan in Lebanon?
Heh. Couldn't resist.
-CW
You mean, like Reagan in Lebanon?
Heh. Couldn't resist.
EXACTLY like Reagan...
:D
Although, I am certain that Reagan had every intention of making good...
THAT is a concept that is utterly alien to Obama...
Michale