Obama falling victim to own Syria ‘red line’

Fool me once, shame on you. (The Taliban regime in Afghanistan helped al-Qaida to plan 9/11. We must invade.)

Fool me twice, shame on me. (Saddam Hussein is building weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We must invade.)

But fool me three times ... (The Syrian regime is using poison gas against the rebels. We must help them with arms supplies.) There’s nothing left to say, is there?

U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration announced last Thursday it will arm Syrian rebels, since it has proof President Bashar alAssad’s regime has been using chemical weapons against them. He clearly doesn’t want to do this, but he has been trapped by his own words.

“The president ... has made it clear the use of chemical weapons or transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist groups is a red line,” said deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes, expanding on Obama’s statement. “He has said use of chemical weapons would change his calculus, and it has.” But in a further statement Tuesday, Obama fretted it is “very easy to slip-slide your way into deeper and deeper commitments,” ending up with full-scale U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war.

“If (arms aid to the rebels) is not working immediately,” the president pointed out, “then ... six months from now people say, ‘Well, you gave the heavy artillery; now what we really need is X, and now what we really need is Y.’ Because until Assad is defeated, in this view, it’s never going to be enough, right?”

So how did Obama wind up at risk of being dragged into yet another Middle Eastern war?

Last August, faced with constant allegations the Assad regime was using poison gas, Obama announced such an event would cross a red line and trigger U.S. intervention in the war. He was just trying to fend off demands at home for instant intervention, and made his promise in the confident belief the Syrian regime would never be so stupid as to do such a thing. It would clearly help the rebel cause in Syria if they could prove Assad was using chemical weapons.

On the other hand, it was most unlikely the Syrian regime would use its chemical weapons. It has such weapons, of course, like practically every other country in the Middle East, but using them would have no decisive effect in the kind of war it is fighting against the rebels. It would simply give the rebels a better argument for demanding foreign military intervention against the regime.

So 10 months ago, when he made his “red line” statement, Obama was confident Syria would never cross it. It would be particularly foolish for it to use poison gas in the manner now alleged: In small amounts, in four relatively unimportant places, causing a total of 100 to 150 deaths. It just doesn’t make sense, either militarily or politically.

In all likelihood, Obama’s calculation remains correct: Assad’s regime has probably not used chemical weapons. Yet American intelligence services are telling him this has indeed happened. Why would they do that?

They may have been sucked in by rebel allegations Assad’s troops are using poison gas.

The rebels in Syria have been losing all their battles recently, undermining the widespread conviction in American government and media circles that the fall of the Assad regime is just a matter of time. So the desire grows to help the rebels directly. Even if Obama disbelieves the intelligence he is being fed, he cannot reject it openly, and he is shackled by his ill-advised “red line” commitment of 10 months ago. All he can do now is talk a tough line, while dragging his feet as much as possible on action.