A gift for words was always US President Barack Obama’s strongest asset. In Syria, it now looks as if his words – calling the use of chemical weapons a red line that Bashar al-Assad must not cross – have trapped him.
NEW YORK – A gift for words was always US President Barack Obama’s strongest asset. Now it looks as if his words have trapped him.
Having stated in March that the United States would “not tolerate the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people,” and having spoken last year about a “red line” that could not be crossed, he will lose face if he fails to react forcefully to the murder, allegedly by the Syrian regime, of more than 1,000 civilians by sarin gas. Of course, the risk of losing face is not a good reason for attacking another country.
But why did Obama fence himself in with such rhetoric in the first place? Why this particular red line? Secretary of State John Kerry was right to call the use of gas “a moral obscenity.” But so is torturing children, which is how the civil war in Syria actually began more than two years ago. And is killing civilians with chemical agents morally more obscene than shelling, shooting, or starving them to death?
To continue reading, register now.
Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.
Antara Haldar
advocates a radical rethink of development, explains what went right at the recent AI Safety Summit, highlights the economics discipline’s shortcomings, and more.
The prevailing narrative that frames Israel as a colonial power suppressing Palestinians’ struggle for statehood grossly oversimplifies a complicated conflict and inadvertently vindicates the region’s most oppressive regimes. Achieving a durable, lasting peace requires moving beyond such facile analogies.
rejects the facile moralism of those who view the ongoing war through the narrow lens of decolonization.
The far-right populist Geert Wilders’ election victory in the Netherlands reflects the same sentiment that powered Brexit and Donald Trump’s candidacy in 2016. But such outcomes could not happen without the cynicism displayed over the past few decades by traditional conservative parties.
shows what Geert Wilders has in common with other ultra-nationalist politicians, past and present.
Log in/Register
Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.
NEW YORK – A gift for words was always US President Barack Obama’s strongest asset. Now it looks as if his words have trapped him.
Having stated in March that the United States would “not tolerate the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people,” and having spoken last year about a “red line” that could not be crossed, he will lose face if he fails to react forcefully to the murder, allegedly by the Syrian regime, of more than 1,000 civilians by sarin gas. Of course, the risk of losing face is not a good reason for attacking another country.
But why did Obama fence himself in with such rhetoric in the first place? Why this particular red line? Secretary of State John Kerry was right to call the use of gas “a moral obscenity.” But so is torturing children, which is how the civil war in Syria actually began more than two years ago. And is killing civilians with chemical agents morally more obscene than shelling, shooting, or starving them to death?
To continue reading, register now.
Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.
Subscribe
As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.
Register
Already have an account? Log in