Washington Watch: Going to war on faulty – and probably intentionally misleading – intelligence about weapons of mass destruction had to weigh on Obama’s mind.
By DOUGLAS BLOOMFIELDObama's Speech521(photo credit: Marc Israel Sellem)
There was more than a touch of irony as Barack Obama sat on the stage in Dallas, Texas, watching his predecessor dedicate his presidential library, which opens this week on the 10th anniversary of George W. Bush strutting on the deck of an aircraft carrier declaring he’d won the war in Iraq. That turned out to be Mission UN-accomplished; the war wasn’t over, and the winner turned out to be Iran. Maybe that’s why didn’t even mention Iraq once in his speech that day.Going to war on faulty – and probably intentionally misleading – intelligence about weapons of mass destruction had to weigh on Obama’s mind, knowing that the story was breaking that day of Syria’s apparent use of poison gas against its own citizens.After the experience of Bush’s wars Obama knew neither the public nor the Pentagon was ready for a third war, but he had drawn a red line that would be a “game changer”: Syria using chemical weapons. Failure to follow through would be a sign of weakness and costly to America’s international leadership and the president’s stature.He knows his actions will be closely watched in Jerusalem, Tehran and Pyongyang, as well as in Damascus. The president and his secretaries of state and defense had just been to Israel repeating American resolve to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. North Korea for the past several weeks has been threatening nuclear war with apparent impunity. What would they think if he wimped out in Syria? Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said there is “no international or regional consensus” for armed intervention.Not quite. There were plenty of demands on Capitol Hill. Republicans and neo-cons ratcheted up their calls for action, careful to avoid specifying just what action they wanted. The war lovers, Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) and his echo, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), were the loudest, calling for intervention, as they do in just about every conflict that pops up.McCain said he opposed putting “boots on the ground” while his sidekick said, “Absolutely, you’ve got to get on the ground” and go in to take control of Syria’s chemical weapons. McCain even accused Obama of giving Bashar Assad a “green light” to use WMD by drawing that red line at chemical weapons and not intervening earlier, as the senator had demanded.Humorist Andy Borowitz had the senators and other interventionists pegged when he wrote that they are “demanding that President Obama take some action in Syria so that they can attack whatever action he took in Syria.” Similar statements peppered the blogosphere.But what options does Obama have? This much is clear: none of them are very good. The administration has said nothing is off the table, but what is on the on the table are few options, and not very appealing. Jeffrey Goldberg wrote in his Bloomberg View column that if the evidence Assad gassed his own citizens is conclusive, not acting might be the worst option.The president has said he wants confirmation of what was used and by whom, and when he gets that he will respond “prudently” and “deliberately.”Obama is a cautious man who wants to avoid acting hastily without the evidence he needs, but that asset can become a liability through prolonged inaction because he risks letting Assad think there are no consequences to employing WMD and that he can escalate their use.
