ShareThis Page

Obama wary of making misstep in Syria

| Friday, April 26, 2013, 8:33 p.m.
People use a flashlight to search for survivors among the rubble of an area, damaged by what activists say was a missile attack from the Syrian regime, in Raqqa province, east Syria April 25, 2013. REUTERS/Hamid Khatib (SYRIA - Tags: CONFLICT POLITICS TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY)

WASHINGTON — Proceeding cautiously, President Obama insisted on Friday that any use of chemical weapons by Syria would change his “calculus” about military involvement in the 2-year-old civil war — but he said too little is known about a pair of likely sarin attacks to order aggressive action.

The president's public response to the latest intelligence reflected the lack of agreement in Washington over whether to use America's military to intervene in the civil war — and if so, how. But lawmakers in both parties expressed concern that inaction could embolden Syrian President Bashar Assad and perhaps other countries, including North Korea and Iran.

U.S. officials declared on Thursday that the Syrian government probably had used chemical weapons twice in March, newly provocative acts in the civil war that has killed more than 70,000 people and displaced hundreds of thousands more. The assessment followed similar conclusions from Britain, France, Israel and Qatar — key allies eager for a more aggressive response to Syrian conflict.

Obama, in his first comments about the intelligence disclosure, said, “For the Syrian government to utilize chemical weapons on its people crosses a line that will change my calculus and how the United States approaches these issues.”

Obama has issued similar warnings for months, saying the use of chemical weapons or transfer of the stockpiles to terrorists would cross a “red line” and carry “enormous consequences.”

Seeking to show resolve, Obama added that “I've meant what I said.”

The president is facing political pressure from a familiar contingent of senators, led by Arizona Republican John McCain, favoring a quick and strong response. But even those lawmakers appear opposed to an American military invasion and instead support a protective “no-fly zone” or another narrow safe zone inside Syria, along its border with Turkey.

Some lawmakers voiced concern that if Obama does not make good on his promise to respond aggressively if it's shown that Assad has used chemical weapons, his inaction could send a damaging message to the world.

“There's no question that when the United States takes a position that this crosses a line that our failure to respond has implications,” said Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “So that if we, in fact, determine that chemical weapons were used, I think the expectation is that we and the coalition and others take some action.”

Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., wondered whether the red line was “turning into a pink line.”

White House officials insisted Obama's caution was not an indication that the line was shifting. Officials said firm evidence of a chemical weapons attack would trigger a response — unspecified — and would not be contingent on the size and scope of the use.

Obama met at the White House with Jordan's King Abdullah II, whose nation is suffering amid an influx of refugees spilling over its border with Syria. The president promised to vigorously pursue more information about chemical weapons attacks, including exactly who might be responsible and how they might have been carried out.

But Obama set no deadline for answers.

“The president wants the facts,” spokesman Jay Carney said. “And I'm not going to set a timeline because the facts need to be what drives this investigation, not a deadline.”

Syrian officials denied that their government forces had used chemical weapons against rebels.

Hanging over the Obama administration's approach to the new intelligence reports are hard lessons learned from the Iraq war, when faulty intelligence drew America into a lengthy and expensive conflict. Obama, as a candidate for Senate, opposed the Iraq war and made ending the conflict a priority in his first term.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill appeared to be drawing on similar lessons from more than a decade ago. Many who sounded the alarm about Saddam Hussein and the possibility of weapons of mass destruction — and strongly stood with President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq — were far more muted on Friday.

Following a closed-door briefing by Secretary of State John Kerry, they stressed the importance of building international support for any military move against Syria rather than unilateral U.S. action. The sectarian strife in Iraq and the lawlessness in Libya because of the killing of longtime leader Moammar Gadhafi in 2011 stand as sober reminders of what can happen.

“We want to do everything we can to avoid putting boots on the ground,” said Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md., a senior member on the House intelligence committee. “I don't think that we, just as the United States, want to go into another war.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.