As such, drawing a "red line" on such technologies is not necessarily wrong.

It's only when the bluff is called where you have to scramble.

And Obama can rightly say he won't act without the UN, as was effectively implied, and no one will be the wiser.

So it's not a "bite-in-the-ass" moment because no action need be taken, politically speaking. I would be surprised if any action was taken. I think it would require an escalation never before seen, 20k dead in one night or something.

I will of course disagree with the author that "dead is dead." There's slipping and falling on ice dead, there's dying in a car accident dead, there's being shelled dead, and there's being gassed dead.

Which I've heard too. That's reason enough for me to be against action. It spells out a situation of unlimited involvement, because its not enough to depose of Assad, the whole scene then needs to be baby sat for ages after that, to make sure AQ doesn't take over. Another never ending conflict in the middle east.

but it doesn't make me want to approve of creating even more bodies in Syria. Our drones have left children dead all over the Middle East; I'll never support more killing. The killing of innocent children with drones would be easy to stop ( since WE are the ones doing it ), but we continue to do so.
Stories like these make me think about a con man, showing videos of crying, starving children in some poor nation and asking for money. " you must do something ", he says. We whip out the credit card to assuage our guilt.Then he runs off with your money and the kids are still starving.
I have no doubt that we will engage in some good old war profiteering in the near future. Something bad will happen somewhere and we will attack. The funding will be borrowed in our name ( since we don't have the money for war), and we will have to make "sacrifices " ( Social Security, medicare, and other social programs) to trim the deficit. The corporations will pocket the money. And kids will still die.

But we'll all feel better about ourselves, won't we?


Sorry to repeat myself, but I think we should apply the chained CPI to warfare; "If you cannot afford it, you must find a cheaper alternative".

If you take away the ability to gas people, you save lives. I think that's what the goal is, here--not to "kill people," but to kill weapons.

<snip>
Speaking at an impromptu news conference at the White House, Obama noted that he has not authorized military operations against Syria. But he said that any effort by President Bashar al-Assad to use chemical weapons would have significant consequences.

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus,” Obama said. “That would change my equation. .?.?. We’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans.”
<snip>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-issues-syria-red-line-warning-on-chemical-weapons/2012/08/20/ba5d26ec-eaf7-11e1-b811-09036bcb182b_story.html

That "phony red line" as you call it was made crystal clear by President Obama.

Now, you can argue about a lot of things:
whether it has been crossed?
What constitutes crossing?
That he meant it was just a red line as a marker of escalation?

However, don't start some bullshit meme that the red line was made from somebody's flight of fancy while listening to the President.

I have a lot of concerns about either acting in Syria or not acting there. I don't know what's worse because I have no idea who the players are. I have no idea who backs who and who has what in the way of armaments.

That said, words have consequences. They especially have consequences when uttered by The President Of The United States. He and his advisers made this hot mess, and that line is brighter than ever.

Never issue a warning unless you mean to carry it out. You are putting your authority, veracity, and determination on the line. That is rule one.

I have no idea how this is going to turn out. It was an arbitrary point made by the administration that leaves little wiggle room. The use of gas is a crisis anyway but that remark adds even greater urgency to act.

If President Obama doesn't act, he will be called indecisive and cowardly to say the least. Those aren't my thoughts but that of those who oppose him.

President Obama has been called out. Was he bluffing? What is in his hand? Who the hell is even at the table?

Phony my ass!

While I do not support war, I think I get the why of it in this instance:

1.) Chemical warfare in this instance has a specific strategic purpose. To boil it down to the essence, deployment of these weapons allows Assad to hold the entire civilian population hostage to extend his rule over the country. The rebels have no defense that would protect the civilian population, and Assad, if he so chooses, can drop this ordnance anywhere in Syria, at any time, unless there are severe consequences. The rebels cannot bring severe consequences to the table. The international community could.

2.) Assad possesses the largest or one of the very largest stockpiles of such weapons that remains on the planet. Iraq may have been bigger before their stockpile was destroyed in the 90's. Ours and the Soviet stockpiles were certainly bigger, but have been destroyed. The punch line here is that not only could Assad hold the entire civilian population hostage, he could prove his willingness to take lives this way sustainably for a very long time. The rebels apparently have little to stop him. So they are left with a choice of surrender or potentially accepting mass civilian casualties as a cost of victory. The rebels could in theory choose to massively step up their war effort to bring down the government more rapidly, but there is little evidence that they have the military capacity to do this.

The bottom line is if Assad gets to use these weapons without response, he very likely wins. This is part of the reason he owns them. The only real question left for him is the level of carnage needed, and the locations that need to be hit to stop the rebellion.