Where the Red Line Came From -- Before it Was Crossed
A Commentary by Michael Barone
There are still nearly two years left in Barack Obama's presidency, but historians looking back on his record in foreign policy will surely identify one costly error: his refusal to follow through on the implied threat in stating that the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons would be a "red line."
That statement was made in a press conference on Monday, Aug. 20, 2012. The president was not scheduled to appear; press secretary Jay Carney said, "Looks like there's a surprise guest here." After fielding questions on other topics (Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin, Mitt Romney's attack ads and tax returns, friendly fire deaths in Afghanistan) Obama responded to NBC's Chuck Todd's question on whether he envisioned using U.S. military to keep Syria's chemical weapons in safekeeping.
"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," Obama said.
"We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that's a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons." After that question, the press conference was over.
This was one year and two days after Obama said, "the time has come for President Assad to step aside." Which, of course, he didn't do and, two-and-a-half years later, hasn't done.
It was also three months after Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney called for arming Syrian opposition groups and one week before the scheduled opening of the Republican National Convention.
And one month after U.S. intelligence agencies detected signs that the Assad regime was moving chemical weapons out of storage, according to a May 2013 story by the well-sourced Peter Baker and three New York Times colleagues.
Perhaps presidential politics was on Obama's mind. Four days after the press conference, Romney said he would send troops to Syria to prevent the spread of chemical weapons. Obama may have communicated his "red line" -- which seemed to suggest similar action -- to pre-empt a Republican attack.
Or perhaps, as the Times story suggests, he spoke out of concern that Israel might take action. It reported that Denis McDonough, then-deputy national security adviser, convened a "frantic series of meetings" on the weekend of Aug. 18-19 on the issue where it was decided that Obama would address the issue publicly.
Hence his surprise appearance in the pressroom. But the Times also reported that "red line" was "unscripted and that some advisers were surprised he uttered those words." But he apparently decided not to take the words back. On the day following the press conference, spokesman Josh Earnest said that "use or proliferation" of chemical weapons "would be very serious, and it would be a grave mistake."
If Obama wanted to protect against political attacks, he succeeded. Syria was mentioned 28 times in the Oct. 22 foreign policy debate with Romney, in which Obama held his own.
But after he was re-elected, intelligence agencies reported chemical weapons attacks in Syria in December 2012 and March 2013. An April letter to senators acknowledged that U.S. intelligence thought the Syrian regime was using chemical weapons "on a small scale."
In an April 30 press conference, Obama shifted his emphasis, saying that chemical weapons use "would be a game-changer not simply for the United States but for the international community." In September, after it became clear Syria was using chemical weapons, Obama shifted further, saying, "I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line."
Shortly afterward the red line vanished, as Obama ruled out military action and accepted Vladimir Putin's offer to supervise removal of Syrian chemical weapons. But the damage was done. "The president bungled the language," concluded longtime Washington Post diplomatic reporter Glenn Kessler. "He made it appear as if he was denying he had called it a red line, when that obviously was not the case."
Unfortunately, bungling of language has consequences. Government leaders use words like "red line" to mean that grave consequences -- including military action -- will follow if the line is crossed. Obama's failure to back up his "red line" statement with such action has undermined America's credibility. That's a problem for America -- and the world -- until Jan. 20, 2017.
Michael Barone, senior political analyst at the Washington Examiner, (www.washingtonexaminer.com), where this article first appeared, is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. To find out more about Michael Barone, and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2015 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
See Other Political Commentary.
See Other Commentaries by Michael Barone.
Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports. Comments about this content should be directed to the author or syndicate.
Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information.
We conduct public opinion polls on a variety of topics to inform our audience on events in the news and other topics of interest. To ensure editorial control and independence, we pay for the polls ourselves and generate revenue through the sale of subscriptions, sponsorships, and advertising. Nightly polling on politics, business and lifestyle topics provides the content to update the Rasmussen Reports web site many times each day. If it's in the news, it's in our polls. Additionally, the data drives a daily update newsletter and various media outlets across the country.
Some information, including the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and commentaries are available for free to the general public. Subscriptions are available for $4.95 a month or 34.95 a year that provide subscribers with exclusive access to more than 20 stories per week on upcoming elections, consumer confidence, and issues that affect us all. For those who are really into the numbers, Platinum Members can review demographic crosstabs and a full history of our data.
To learn more about our methodology, click here.