Rare News Desk
If you were Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, would you take Barack Obama seriously? Probably not. Why should you? Way back in August 2011, Mr. Obama declared, “the time has come for President Assad to step aside.” Since then he has done precious little to back up his demand for regime change.
Videos by Rare
Fortunately for Mr. Assad, the White House equates moral posturing with actually doing something. By that standard, Mr. Obama has been active indeed. In his 2012 State of the Union address he said he had “no doubt that the Assad regime will soon discover that the forces of change cannot be reversed, and that human dignity cannot be denied.” Human dignity is one of those things Mr. Obama likes to prattle on about, but there has been precious little of it on display lately in Syria. In over two years of conflict the death toll has topped 70,000, the number of wounded is incalculable, there is a burgeoning refugee crisis and no end in sight to the fighting. As late as January of this year Mr. Obama repeated that “more Syrians are standing up for their dignity.” He really likes that word.
By the end of 2012, the newly re-elected Mr. Obama decided to escalate. Rhetorically, anyway. In a speech at the National Defense University he took dead aim at the Assad regime. “I want to make it absolutely clear to Assad and those under his command — the world is watching,” he said. “The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable. And if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences and you will be held accountable.” In March 2013 he reiterated, “I have made clear that the use of chemical weapons is a game-changer.”
Strong words. Brave, stirring, inspiring words. Mr. Obama drew a line in the sand, daring Assad and his minions to cross it. And from any other president, those words would mean something. They would be a national commitment, bedrock against which accountability could be measured.
But this is Barack Obama. He doesn’t actually mean things, he just says them.
Last week reports began to circulate, from Israel and in testimony before Congress, that the Assad regime had in fact crossed Mr. Obama’s line. In response to queries from key lawmakers, the White House released information that the Intelligence Community “assess with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria.” See, it was on a small scale. Just a tiny bit of WMD activity. Hardly any really.
It soon emerged that the White House had been keeping information about the chemical attacks quiet. They only came clean when it was clear word was getting out anyway. And since then, nothing. No changed game. No consequences. No accountability. No threat of force. No “sending a message.” That line in the sand thing? Whatever. Don’t be so literal.
Unfortunately Mr. Obama did not change his game. He continues to show the same weakness in the face of international crises beyond his control or understanding. He still thinks that mere statements, delivered with sufficient umbrage, will be enough to dissuade rogue regimes from their dangerous behavior. Yet they have seen enough of Mr. Obama’s bluster to know that he does not back up his words with actions. The result is worse than if he had said nothing at all. His posturing saps U.S. credibility and reduces Mr. Obama’s already sagging global stature.
Maybe it would not matter much if the only issue was Syria. But there are other rogues watching, and taking notes. North Korea has learned well that Mr. Obama is more of a talker than a fighter. In his 2013 State of the Union address Mr. Obama promised he would “lead the world in taking firm action” against the North Korean nuclear threat. Instead he engaged in secret negotiations with Pyongyang that collapsed and led to greater provocations. Mr. Obama’s repeated warning that North Korea’s provocations “will only isolate them further” is a tone deaf threat when aimed at the most self-isolated country in the world.
Also in the 2013 SOTU Mr. Obama said that “the leaders of Iran must recognize that now is the time for a diplomatic solution” and that the U.S. will “do what is necessary to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon.” But again, what credibility does Mr. Obama bring to the issue? Should Tehran believe him? And if so why? If Mr. Obama won’t take action against the pitifully weak Assad regime for using chemical weapons when he explicitly said that he would, why expect that he will move against more powerful Iran for simply developing a nuclear weapon? On a small scale.
But know this, enemies of freedom. Whatever you do, President Obama will be ready with another speech. And another. And another. Until you have heard every speech. Until you are forced to recognize his dignity. And until you grudgingly admit that he is more historic than you.
James S. Robbins is Deputy Editor of Rare
