Debate: Obama said chemical weapons were a ‘red line’ for intervention in Syria. So should America now intervene?
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.
What's going on?
Last August President Obama vowed that were the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad to use chemical weapons in the ongoing civil war it would constitute crossing a "red line".
Obama's word is now being tested as reports last week suggested that chemical weapons had been used, a revelation the President again described as "game changing".
But, with the relatively small-scale of the episodes currently under investigation, America has not yet acted on its threats.
Should Obama keep his word and step up US intervention in the conflict?
Case for: Word
For America not to act now looks worse than cowardly. Assurances were given - to the press, but more importantly to the Syrian people - that if the barbarous regime of Assad used chemical weapons then the US would act. We've seen the videos of what looks like civilians suffering from chemical attacks. But we've neither seen nor heard anything from Obama. It would be unconscionable now, having made so many promises, to continue to sit on the sidelines. Moreover, it would render America's word - a previously valuable political currency - null and void.
Case against: Pragmatism
Obama's statement, it seems, was not one he had aligned with his policy advisers. It might well have been political tough-talk, a line floated to dissuade Assad from pursuing further butchery. Far worse than the President looking a little foolish would be to allow US foreign policy to be dictated by a political foot-fault. Since intervention is expensive and America's strategic interests unchallenged by Syria's civil war, it's better to wait and weigh the evidence further.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments