Syria: More Trouble than It's Worth

by Sam Huntington

We now understand someone in Syria used chemical agents and that lots of people are dead, dying, or suffering serious effects. The question is, who used it?

We don’t know for certain, hence Obama’s disappearing red line in the sand. It is a disappearing red line because when the phrase was first used, it sounded quite authoritative. Subsequent caveats, however, made it sound less so —according to the European press, even a bit squishy. Mr. Obama's most recent determination is, “The international community will have to reach the same conclusion before the United States will act.”



Ah ... okay.

Presumably, this means that the United States will require a robust international coalition before taking action in Syria. Raise your hand if you think any country wants to waste more of its national treasury on conflicts —from wars to low intensity struggles— that the United States has no intention of winning.

Has Mr. Obama taken a reasonable approach to this problem? After all, if we don’t know which side is using the nerve gas, how is it possible to intervene on the correct side of this melee?

The sticky wicket here is that the signals we are receiving from the international community are that it was rebel forces used the gas. The same side of the conflict, by the way, from which a leader used his knife to cut out the heart of a fallen government soldier, and while on camera, ate it, and the same side of the conflict that the United States wants to provision with arms and munitions.

I’m speaking now of these two issues: a weapon of mass destruction that according to the western presses never existed, and a collection of terrorist organizations determined to use it, including al-Qaeda, that represents a movement progressives assure us is illustrative of religious tolerance.

So then, what should be done? I see these three possibilities:

Obama could involve the United States on the side of rebel forces. This would mean aligning the United States with anti-American, pro-terrorist elements. Judging from Obama’s Arab Spring policy, this would not appear to be a problem for America's chief executive. Of course, such a relationship would destroy any remaining US credibility in the Middle East, but when you think about it, it’s not so much.

Or, the United States could pursue its present policy of enabling terrorist organizations by doing nothing ... but this would guarantee anti-American, pro-terrorist elements with a strategic victory in that region of the Middle East, and deliver a blow to any remaining US credibility in the region. Still, when you think about it, it’s not so much.

Our final option is to sell F-16s and M-1 Abrams tanks to anti-American, pro-terrorist elements, place Islamic extremists on the fast track for US immigration, and apologize to the world for America’s arrogance in the post-World War Era. Oh, wait ... we've already done that.

Are there any other ideas?