SYRIA REDUX

Some of our regular readers will recall that last Friday our staff at Two for Texas questioned why as yet the Obama administration had not shelved war plans until at least Syria's neighbors had evidenced concern about that nation's use of chemical warfare against its own citizens ("HAS THE U.K. TAKEN THE WIND OUT OF OBAMA'S SYRIAN SAILS?" 8/30/2013).  Two days following (on Sunday), the foreign ministers of the Arab League, meeting in Cairo, issued a statement in which they condemned the Assad regime and called for international action.  Although the statement was not specific as to what sort of international action would be appropriate, it did suggest that the matter should be referred to the U.N.  In the meantime, President Obama, AKA the "Amateur," has backed off from his infamous "red-line" and has indicated that he is tossing the ball into Congress's court.

All of these developments are causing astute observers to wonder why some of these steps were not taken months ago; and, if the role of Congress is seen as a major one by the White House, why isn't Congress being summoned back now, as its summer recess is winding down?

Although the pages of Two for Texas have been, on the whole, less than kind to George W. Bush, we can't help comparing the actions of President Obama to those of President Bush, who began to put his coalition together and went before the U.N. before his tough talk led to action on Iraq.  In contrast, President Obama in "telegraphing" his intentions to the world before garnering international support for such a move, has emerged from the Syrian fiasco with much diplomatic egg on his face. Hopefully, Secretary of State Kerry has a few underlings at the Department of State with some sort of understanding about international protocols which have banned chemical warfare and are also savvy concerning the need for subtlety in gaining international support against Syria .

Owing to the use of chlorine gas in 1915 by Germany, a pell-mell rush ensued by the participants in World War I to build up their reserves of chemical weapons.  After the war, the losing parties were prohibited from producing and stockpiling chemical agents.  During the Bolshevik takeover in Russia and also in the post-war era in the Middle East, gas warfare continued to be resorted to. Despite efforts in 1925 in Geneva which produced a protocol against chemical weapons, the use of poisonous gases persistently showed up as a military option. During World War II, although the Allies and Germany possessed tons of reserves of chemical weapons, they were not resorted to, and most of these stockpiles were eventually disposed of.  Throughout the Cold War, both sides were capable of producing and using chemical weapons, but refrained from doing so.  Of course, more recently, the Iraqi government of Sadam Hussein used gas against his own people and against Iran, during their war of 1980-1988.  By the end  of the 20th century, though, the original protocol against chemical weapons had gained traction and was widely understood throughout the international community to have proscribed chemical warfare, both during times of war between nations and during internal conflicts within nations.

With the historical background and development of a world-wide intent to interdict chemical weapons, there should be no hesitation on the part of the United States to pursue its case in the court of world opinion, and this includes the U.N., and the Court of International Justice at the Hague. To belligerently posture before exhausting every possible means internationally to paint Syria as a rogue country is not reasonable.  And, right now, it would  seem more than a little plausible that the Arab League and the Arab foreign ministers should be encouraged to at least consider a trade embargo against Syria.  After all, it's their neighborhood!

For now, the U.S. should be exerting itself to regain diplomatic prestige lost in the recent debacle over Syria. If there is a lesson to be learned in all of this, it might be that our leaders should always be mindful of the need for discretion in their words; but, along with that, they should realize, as well, the necessity of having  the ability and resolve for an option of confrontation when all else fails.  I seem to recall that there was a past president who used an expression that went something like this:  "Speak softly and carry a big stick."  Perhaps this was not covered in the curricula at Columbia and Harvard.