US builds case for Syria strikes
President Barack Obama has made no final decision to use force nor established a timeline for action.
President Barack Obama had made no final decision to use force nor established a timeline for action. PHOTO: AFP
WASHINGTON:
The United States Monday built a moral and legal case for military action against Syria, rooted in the proposition that its "undeniable" use of chemical warfare had shattered humanitarian norms.
US rhetoric, led by an emotional Secretary of State John Kerry, is suddenly hawkish: a remarkable turn for a White House that for months ruled out a slide into another Middle Eastern war.
Officials cautioned that President Barack Obama had made no final decision to use force nor established a timeline for action.
There was however a growing sense in Washington that operation against President Bashar al-Assad's forces is now inevitable: the only questions were when and how.
The shift in tone has been swift.
Late last week, President Barack Obama was warning against new entanglements in a blood-soaked region that could "get us mired in very difficult situations."
But a combination of what Kerry called "gut-wrenching" footage of dying children in a Damascus suburb last week, and what officials see as solid intelligence of regime culpability, shifted the US position over the weekend.
The administration made a dual case: that the use of such heinous arms against civilians, regarded by the world as taboo for decades, must not stand, and that US national interests are now at stake.
Kerry was, in part, speaking to Russia, the Syrian ally disputing US claims that Assad's regime was behind the attack.
He said "common humanity" dictates the need to ensure the horrific scenes of last week are not repeated.
Kerry's appearance Monday was a sign Washington believes efforts by a UN team to probe the attack are no longer viable due to Syrian obfuscation.
The White House condemned Syria for destroying evidence of the assault with repeated bombardments and over sniper fire on the team's vehicles.
There was, sources said, concern Syria could use the inspections process to delay international diplomatic momentum and ultimately the day of reckoning for the chemical assault.
With polls showing Americans cool to another Middle East adventure, the White House is also making a domestic political argument.
"The use of these weapons on a mass scale, and the potential risk of proliferation, is a threat to our national interests," said spokesman Jay Carney.
Any final case for military action would be made by Obama himself in a national address.
It was unclear exactly which international law statutes the administration will use to build its case, but the 1925 Geneva Protocol was the original document that outlawed the use of poison gases in war.
The administration is making clear this will not be a go-it-alone war. Allies Britain and France are already on board.
While a UN Security Council resolution authorizing force would likely draw a Russian veto, the precedent for action by an international coalition without such a mandate was set by the 1990s Kosovo conflict.
US bombardments of Syria would likely start with cruise missile strikes launched from US, and possibly allied, ships and submarines.
Analysts said targets could include military units implicated in the attack last week, which opposition forces said killed up to 1,300 people.
Any strike must be sufficiently punitive to deter further use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime.
But there is no appetite for prolonged involvement - the mantra is "no boots on the ground." Senior officials say a "no-fly" zone is a no go.
The operation would be smaller and shorter than the months-long Nato campaign over Libya, sources said.
Obama will also make clear that any military action is purely a response to the use of chemical weapons and not an intervention into a wider civil war or attempt at regime change.
Stiffened US rhetoric leaves Obama little wiggle room, as does his warning a year ago that the use of chemical weapons would cross a US "red line" - comments that challenged presidential credibility.
"I think a response is imminent," Republican Senator Bob Corker said on MSNBC Monday.
"I think you are going to see a surgical, proportional strike against the Assad regime."
Republican House Armed Services committee chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon said there can be no impunity for the use of chemical weapons.
"The president cannot fail to act decisively."
Obama has spent months trying to avoid direct involvement in a war that has killed at least 100,000 people, after extracting US troops from Iraq and as he brings them home from Afghanistan.
His defenders point out he is hardly a reluctant commander-in-chief: he leads a ruthless drone war worldwide and risked his presidency to kill Osama bin Laden.
But a Syrian campaign and its possibly unforeseen consequences could disrupt Obama's chosen legacy - as a leader who ended wars, not one who opened new fronts.
The United States Monday built a moral and legal case for military action against Syria, rooted in the proposition that its "undeniable" use of chemical warfare had shattered humanitarian norms.
US rhetoric, led by an emotional Secretary of State John Kerry, is suddenly hawkish: a remarkable turn for a White House that for months ruled out a slide into another Middle Eastern war.
Officials cautioned that President Barack Obama had made no final decision to use force nor established a timeline for action.
There was however a growing sense in Washington that operation against President Bashar al-Assad's forces is now inevitable: the only questions were when and how.
The shift in tone has been swift.
Late last week, President Barack Obama was warning against new entanglements in a blood-soaked region that could "get us mired in very difficult situations."
But a combination of what Kerry called "gut-wrenching" footage of dying children in a Damascus suburb last week, and what officials see as solid intelligence of regime culpability, shifted the US position over the weekend.
The administration made a dual case: that the use of such heinous arms against civilians, regarded by the world as taboo for decades, must not stand, and that US national interests are now at stake.
Kerry was, in part, speaking to Russia, the Syrian ally disputing US claims that Assad's regime was behind the attack.
He said "common humanity" dictates the need to ensure the horrific scenes of last week are not repeated.
Kerry's appearance Monday was a sign Washington believes efforts by a UN team to probe the attack are no longer viable due to Syrian obfuscation.
The White House condemned Syria for destroying evidence of the assault with repeated bombardments and over sniper fire on the team's vehicles.
There was, sources said, concern Syria could use the inspections process to delay international diplomatic momentum and ultimately the day of reckoning for the chemical assault.
With polls showing Americans cool to another Middle East adventure, the White House is also making a domestic political argument.
"The use of these weapons on a mass scale, and the potential risk of proliferation, is a threat to our national interests," said spokesman Jay Carney.
Any final case for military action would be made by Obama himself in a national address.
It was unclear exactly which international law statutes the administration will use to build its case, but the 1925 Geneva Protocol was the original document that outlawed the use of poison gases in war.
The administration is making clear this will not be a go-it-alone war. Allies Britain and France are already on board.
While a UN Security Council resolution authorizing force would likely draw a Russian veto, the precedent for action by an international coalition without such a mandate was set by the 1990s Kosovo conflict.
US bombardments of Syria would likely start with cruise missile strikes launched from US, and possibly allied, ships and submarines.
Analysts said targets could include military units implicated in the attack last week, which opposition forces said killed up to 1,300 people.
Any strike must be sufficiently punitive to deter further use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime.
But there is no appetite for prolonged involvement - the mantra is "no boots on the ground." Senior officials say a "no-fly" zone is a no go.
The operation would be smaller and shorter than the months-long Nato campaign over Libya, sources said.
Obama will also make clear that any military action is purely a response to the use of chemical weapons and not an intervention into a wider civil war or attempt at regime change.
Stiffened US rhetoric leaves Obama little wiggle room, as does his warning a year ago that the use of chemical weapons would cross a US "red line" - comments that challenged presidential credibility.
"I think a response is imminent," Republican Senator Bob Corker said on MSNBC Monday.
"I think you are going to see a surgical, proportional strike against the Assad regime."
Republican House Armed Services committee chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon said there can be no impunity for the use of chemical weapons.
"The president cannot fail to act decisively."
Obama has spent months trying to avoid direct involvement in a war that has killed at least 100,000 people, after extracting US troops from Iraq and as he brings them home from Afghanistan.
His defenders point out he is hardly a reluctant commander-in-chief: he leads a ruthless drone war worldwide and risked his presidency to kill Osama bin Laden.
But a Syrian campaign and its possibly unforeseen consequences could disrupt Obama's chosen legacy - as a leader who ended wars, not one who opened new fronts.