Obama’s “Red Line” in Pictures: Odyssey of Determined Inaction

Boston: Condolences from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan

Terrorism will never triumph.

IRAQ

SYRIA

AFGHANISTAN

Interview: Kurdistan, Iraq war & Humanitarian Intervention

I talked to Damian Counsell of Ricochet in a wide-ranging conversation about my recent visit to Iraqi Kurdistan to mark the 25th anniversary of Saddam Hussein’s genocide against its people; why the survivors viewed Allied action as a liberation; the surprising preference of many Kurds for Turkey over the United States as a future partner, and the meaning of humanitarian intervention 10 years after the Iraq War.

Listen in above or subscribe in iTunes. Direct link here.

Intervention has consequences. Inaction has too – Excerpt from an interview

Here is an excerpt from an interview I gave today:

What is Tony Blair like in real life?

Relaxed and engaging, with a fine sense of humour, excellent manners, and just the right amount of charm.

Why are you so loyal to Tony Blair and George W Bush?

Tony Blair stands up for what he believes is right and not necessarily for what is popular. That is a rare trait among politicians and for that he deserves respect and loyalty. I am more ambivalent when it comes to George W. Bush; not so much because of him but some of the people around him – especially Cheney and Rumsfeld.

What attracted you to humanitarian interventionism?

We always look at the consequences of intervention but the truth is that inaction has consequences, too. War is an imperfect instrument for righting humanitarian catastrophes but when you look at history, toothless diplomacy often caused more suffering, death, and destruction than principled interventionism in the face of utter evil.

Each conflict, of course, is distinctive. It takes individual approaches to deal with them accordingly. Interventionism should not be seen as a rigid, evangelical code of principles but a flexible tool to achieve what it does best: saving lives.

Humanitarian interventionism isn’t always popular. What is it like being attacked for your beliefs?

It is a matter of principle. It is not only worthwhile but also extremely important to take a stand for what you believe is right.

Why do you defend the Iraq invasion so vigorously?

Because I believed and still believe that Saddam was a threat that needed to be confronted. I have always accepted that there were legitimate arguments against the invasion and never claimed moral superiority in regard to anyone else’s opinion. Others unfortunately have. People no longer listen. They have, on both sides of the argument, made up their minds. Now, there only exist right or wrong, black or white; no maybes and no shades of grey.

What really makes me fume are the self-appointed moralists who call a thrice democratically elected Prime Minister a “war criminal” and “mass murderer” in the absence of a legal judgement, while straining their brains to find absurd and grotesque excuses for a totalitarian tyrant.

When and why did you first start Julie’s Think Tank?

About 3 years ago. I started blogging because I wanted to put down some political ideas and get some interaction from others on them. And because I was spending so much time commenting on other people’s blogs, I thought I might as well have my own.

Tell me about your time at the LSE.

Going to LSE was one of the worst decisions in my life. The anti-Western and anti-Israel feelings are running high in certain circles at the LSE. The backward philosophy of Orientalism has become the dominate narrative. We are the aggressors; they are the victims. They are freedom fighters; we are occupiers. Their cause is just; ours is not.

LSE has become an institution where Professors tell their students that the West “misunderstands jihad” and that the “Bush administration is the most radicalised government” one can possibly think of.

We have to stop apologising for own position and stop buying into our enemy’s narrative. It’s self-defeating.

Why is intervening in Syria so important?

The humanitarian crisis in Syria is heart-breaking. According to UN figures, 60,000 people have died since March 2011 and the actual number is likely to be much higher. Thousands are fleeing the violence across the border every day – 84,000 in December 2012 alone – bringing the total number of those displaced to around half a million.

But as much as Syria is a humanitarian catastrophe, it is also a geo-political crisis.

Syria is not an isolated case like, for instance, Libya. It is central to holding together the Middle East, as it touches upon various, complex interests. Due to the sectarian nature of the conflict, the spill-over effects into other countries are severe.

As such, the brutal conflict is not only pushing Syria into the humanitarian abyss but is destabilising various other countries to a dangerous degree. It is a recipe for a long-term sectarian strife, destruction, and death across the entire region that will make post-war Iraq look simple.

What is the best part of being a prominent political blogger? The worst?

To be visible is necessary to have influence and advance ideas but it also makes you a target for abuse, criticism, and potentially dangerous attention.

Also, you’re 25 (even though I think you’re 40 deep down), right?

Age is overrated. But I guess when you are surrounded by older people, you become older yourself. (It’s not necessarily a bad thing though!)

Syria: when is a red line not a red line?

A secret cable sent to the State Department in Washington last week, indicates that it is highly likely that Assad used chemical weapons in an attack on the city of Homs on December 23rd, 2012.

The cable was produced by US officials in Turkey and signed by the US consul general in Istanbul, Scott Frederic Kilner. The report is based on interviews conducted with activists, civilians, doctors and aid workers on the ground.

An Obama administration official, who reviewed the secret cable, revealed that it makes a “compelling case” that Assad indeed resorted to a form of poison gas, although it is impossible to confirm “100 per cent”.

The weapon in question is Iraqi Agent 15, chemically either identical or closely related to BZ, and is controlled under schedule 2 of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Although Agent 15 is a hallucinogenic, semilethal weapon, it must not be underestimated. Symptoms include delirium, respiratory problems, and increased heart rate. A high exposure can lead to seizures, coma, and respiratory failure.

Doctors in Homs confirmed that some of their patients died from choking on their own vomit. According to them, their conclusion that chemical weapons were used are based on three factor: “The suddenness of the deaths of those who were directly exposed, the large number of people affected, and the fact that many victims returned with recurring symptoms more than 12 hours after they had been treated, meaning that the poison had settled either in their nervous systems or fat tissue.”

The use of Agent 15 constitutes yet another attempt by Assad to test out his boundaries, given that his regime is on the verge of collapse. We have seen a similar policy before, when Assad slowly increased his air campaign to await the West’s response. When it eventually turned out that the establishment of a no-fly zone was out of the question, the regime shifted its modus operandi accordingly. Now, it kills primarily from the air.

The incident is a strong indicator that the conflict is at high risk to descend into full chemical warfare and could have serious implications for the US’s approach on Syria, as it crosses the administration’s declared “red line” policy.

But although the use of Agent 15 is a clear and serious breach of that policy, there are no indications that the Obama administration plans to let its words follow action.

On the contrary, the White House National Security Council spokesman, Tommy Vietor, stated today that “the reporting we have seen from media sources regarding alleged chemical weapons incidents in Syria has not been consistent with what we believe to be true about the Syrian chemical weapons program.”

He also vowed that “if the Assad regime makes the tragic mistake of using chemical weapons, or fails to meet its obligation to secure them, the regime will be held accountable.”

His remarks follow General Martin Dempsey’s assssement that “the effort or the act of preventing the use of chemical weapons would be almost unachievable.”

It is not the first time that the administration is widening the definition of its “red line” concept. In the earlier stages of the conflict, the President declared that “a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around” would lead to US action. He has now shifted his position to the point where the US will only get involved, if Assad uses chemical weapons on his own people.

According to the secret State Department cable, that point seems to have now been reached. It appears, however, that the Obama administration is redefining its “red line” concept yet again in order to avoid the embarrassment of being called out on the violation of its own policy.

This in turn sends signals to Iran that US red lines are not necessarily as defined as might be stated initially. Many inside and outside Iran will now be questioning Obama’s declared commitment to preventing the country from developing nuclear weapons capability. If his red lines for Syria become flexible whenever it looks as though he may be expected to order military intervention, why would they be any less so for Iran?

Washington wants to stay out of Syria at any cost but the administration’s lack of leadership and credibility is putting the lives of hundreds of thousands of Syrians at risk, and risks emboldening Assad, who may decide that America’s moving red lines allow him to act with impunity.

If Assad believes that he can get away with using semilethal chemical weapons without any serious repercussions, he may move on to using lethal weapons in the next stage of the conflict.

The Obama administration is about to give up the last buffer zone between a disastrous civil war that already claimed the lives of an estimated 60,000 people in the space of 22 months and full chemical warfare that could kill the same amount of people in a much shorter period.

I would like to thank my colleague Jonathan Sacerdoti for his much appreciated advice.