President Obama drew the line in the proverbial sand: Syrian use of chemical weapons was a game-changer in a country ripped apart by civil war.
Now what?
Obama’s critics on the right want him to act immediately and decisively. Send in the jets and the bombers, they say, to wipe out the government forces that reportedly have used the weapons on their foes.
But the president is trying to weigh his options with great care. He has good reason to avoid a rush into this bloody conflict. Syrian air defenses are first-rate, unlike those in Libya, where the U.S.-led air campaign operated with virtually no opposition in the effort to topple the late Moammar Gadhafi. Syria presents a different problem. Its air defense system was developed and installed by Syria’s friends in Moscow. There can be no guarantee that U.S. warplanes can conduct an air campaign without suffering grievous losses.
So it is pertinent to ask: Is the country ready to lose more American lives over Syria, in another war, after losing more than 5,000 lives in Afghanistan and Iraq? Do we really want to do this?
Obama is right to lay down the no-chemical-weapons marker on the Syrians. He would be justified in taking action against Syria, given the country’s proximity to Israel, our most important U.S. ally in the Middle East.
But the war hawks on the right need to pipe down and let the Obama administration weigh its options carefully.