Is the US Red Line in Syria Just Empty Rhetoric?

[nsaspook]

The billions we will spend of this "political statement" could be much better spent on providing humanitarian care in Syria for the families of the 100,000 killed already and to help those hapless citizens in the middle of a war that the US does not want either side to win. I don't know and at this point really don't care which side used chemical weapons because we won't bomb the weapon sites as it would be stupid to have a uncontrolled release no matter who has them. All we can really do is to destroy some military targets that Russia and China will replace in a few weeks after the strike is over. The message it sends it that you can keep killing each other , just don't do it with sarin gas.

 

[lisab]

The billions we will spend of this "political statement" could be much better spent on providing humanitarian care in Syria for the families of the 100,000 killed already and to help those hapless citizens in the middle of a war that the US does not want either side to win. I don't know and at this point really don't care which side used chemical weapons because we won't bomb the weapon sites as it would be stupid to have a uncontrolled release no matter who has them. All we can really do is to destroy some military targets that Russia and China will replace in a few weeks after the strike is over. The message it sends it that you can keep killing each other , just don't do it with sarin gas.

Yes, the number of people killed is staggering. So we have 100,000 killed using kinetic weapons but now there are ~1,000 killed using a different kind of weapon, so that is our trigger to do something? How bizarre.

Yet I totally get it, why we haven't done anything yet. What a horrible situation.

From the Egypt thread:

This is Obama's 'Kobayashi Maru' moment and it's painful to watch.

Seems Obama has two Kobayashi Marus now. Tough job, he has my best wishes.

 

[turbo]

I have a very hard time figuring why some people want the US to jump into Syria. Pursuing a diplomatic goal at the barrel of a gun is foolhardy, and it has led us into "adventures" in the ME that have cost the lives of so many of our military personnel (both literally, and at the expense of PTSD).

IMO, we should let the players in Syria take care of themselves. We can't just dump money and arms in there without knowing their ultimate disposition, and we can't let the US become the sugar-daddy for every single country with internal conflicts. At some point, we have to exercise some restraint.

 

[OmCheeto]

Yes, the number of people killed is staggering. So we have 100,000 killed using kinetic weapons but now there are ~1,000 killed using a different kind of weapon, so that is our trigger to do something? How bizarre.

Yet I totally get it, why we haven't done anything yet. What a horrible situation.

From the Egypt thread:



Seems Obama has two Kobayashi Marus now. Tough job, he has my best wishes.

No. It's our Kobayashi Maru.

Barry is my soulmate.

I know this, as I see me in his eyes...

 

[SteamKing]

You also must ask yourself this question: if the US intervenes in Syria with the current leadership in the Administration, what happens if, God forbid, things go south, for whatever reason. Obama already acts like a stranger in his own country when he is at home, and he treats the US like an enemy when he goes abroad. He has shown only a limited grasp of domestic policy and his grasp of foreign policy is equally shaky. Much the same can be said of his closest advisors. This situation does not inspire much confidence in a successful outcome, either for the US, and least of all for the Syrians.

What would Obama do if, instead of entering the conflict directly, Russia and China send large numbers of 'advisors' and warehouses of weapons and aid to the Syrian government forces? What if R and C decide to increase their ties to Iran, and use the Iranians as proxies in this fight? Iran may not help the Syrians directly, but what if they decided to settle scores with their sworn enemies in Iraq? What if Iraq became destabilized again? A giant black eye for US policy in that country, and it means that all the treasure and lives expended in getting rid of Saddam are for naught.

Another thing to consider is that the armed forces of the US world-wide are only a fraction of what they were when the Iraq War commenced ten years ago. In order to support operations in Syria, naval units will have to be stripped from other areas of the globe. Ground forces would also probably have to be transferred to the Med from other areas, as well. Would you like to see forces transferred from, say, Korea, to deal with Syria? What if the NORKs become stroppy during this time?

When two enemies are fighting each other to the death, there is little benefit to having a third party intervene. The third party, the US, may eventually have to take on both Syrian sides in this conflict.

 

[russ_watters]

It is a mess, to be sure. A number of observations:

Obama painted himself into a corner with his "Red Line" comment and has repeatedly assured Assad that there would be few to no consequences for virtually anything Assad might do. The comment told Assad 'kill as many people as you want and we won't bother you; as long as you don't use chemical weapons. But even then, we won't depose you.' Obama underestimated Assad - no doubt, he didn't expect Assad to actually use chemical weapons.

After Syria crossed the red line in May, and Obama did nothing, that told Assad 'do whatever you want and we won't do anything at all about it.' But Assad miscalculated just a smidge here. He appears to have smacked Obama on the behind just a bit too hard. Now he has to act to avoid looking like a spineless non-acting talker. But he's still assured Assad that he's not going to do much: no ground troops and no attempt to depose Assad. Just absorb a few Tomahawks and be on your way. Feel free to kill another hundred thousand or so; as long as you don't make me look too stupid, I'll basically let it go.

But it gets worse. Obama largely ran for office and has acted on the idea that America should not be the world leader/policeman. He criticized past Presidents for acting without UN approval and let/made France take the lead in Libya. Now he's created a situation where he basically has to act, but he's pretty much guaranteed to not receive UN approval to do it. He's screwed.

But you know what? I'm going to give him props for having a little bit of a spine when it happens. Standing-up to Russia and dissing the corrupt, immoral, do-nothing UN is the right thing to do. He may not like it. Heck, he may not even believe it, but it is. Clinton learned. He will too.

One of my great regrets in foreign policy is not sending troops to try to stop the Rwandan genocide when I realized how severe it was. It happened very fast, 90 days, 10 percent of the country, 700,000 people killed with machetes. I feel terrible that we didn't do it. We were still kind of reeling from Somalia and we were trying to get into both Bosnia and Haiti. So that the whole thing was never seriously considered. And when I finally came to grips with the magnitude of it -- I will always regret it.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0406/24/lkl.00.html

People are right when they say that our strategic interests are best served by Syria obliterating itself over the course of a multi-year civil war (probably not an accurate term). But my morality won't allow me to accept such a thing.

Note: Much of this post was derived from the following editorial:
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/26/opinion/syria-chemical-weapons-opinion/?hpt=hp_c1

 

[russ_watters]

I agree, lisab.

The main problem(s) as of now is not Syria, it is Iran and North Korea. My main concern is that we will strike or become involved in Syria, and Obama will use that as an excuse to not attack Iran or DPRK when they need to be. Both are probably within a year from getting nuclear weapons. It will be interesting to see how this will all play out.

North Korea has nuclear weapons. Iran? A concern, definitely, but since it is more of a concern for Israel and Israel doesn't have the political issue with acting that we do, I'm not that concerned about it. If it appears imminent, Israel will stop it.

 

[russ_watters]

An analysis I agree with:

"Despite graphic media coverage, American policymakers, journalists and citizens are extremely slow to muster the imagination needed to reckon with evil. Ahead of the killings, they assume rational actors will not inflict seemingly gratuitous violence. They trust in good-faith negotiations and traditional diplomacy. Once the killings start, they assume that civilians who keep their head down will be left alone. They urge cease-fires and donate humanitarian aid."

This is an almost perfect description of how the United States has acted over the past two years as it has tried to come up with some kind of policy to end the Assad regime's brutal war on its own people in Syria.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/26/opinion/bergen-syria-problem/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

 

[DrDu]

Has information been released on exactly what kind of chemical weapons were used in Syria?

 

[cdux]

I never understood why people ever believed the propaganda that any country goes into a war with another country to "help its people".

When did that ever happen?

 

[kith]

I'd like to ask again why almost nobody questions who used the chemical weapons. Why on Earth should Assad do so in the current situation?

 

[russ_watters]

I never understood why people ever believed the propaganda that any country goes into a war with another country to "help its people".

When did that ever happen?

Any war where outsiders intervened to help rebels overthrow their rulers, from the American Revolution to Libya, with many in between.

 

[russ_watters]

I'd like to ask again why almost nobody questions who used the chemical weapons. Why on Earth should Assad do so in the current situation?

Probably because he wants to win his war and chemical weapons are effective.

 

[jim hardy]

First post in thread asks "how many is enough?"
That's for the participants to decide not us.

http://www.literaturepage.com/read/tomsawyer-9.html

Tom drew a line in the dust with his big toe, and said:

"I dare you to step over that, and I'll lick you till you can't stand up. Anybody that'll take a dare will steal sheep."

The new boy stepped over promptly, and said:

"Now you said you'd do it, now let's see you do it."

"Don't you crowd me now; you better look out."

"Well, you SAID you'd do it -- why don't you do it?"

"By jingo! for two cents I WILL do it."

The new boy took two broad coppers out of his pocket and held them out with derision. Tom struck them to the ground. In an instant both boys were rolling and tumbling in the dirt, gripped together like cats; and for the space of a minute they tugged and tore at each other's hair and clothes, punched and scratched each other's nose, and covered themselves with dust and glory. Presently the confusion took form, and through the fog of battle Tom appeared, seated astride the new boy, and pounding him with his fists. "Holler 'nuff!" said he.

The boy only struggled to free himself. He was crying -- mainly from rage.

"Holler 'nuff!" -- and the pounding went on.

At last the stranger got out a smothered "'Nuff!" and Tom let him up and said:

"Now that'll learn you. Better look out who you're fooling with next time."

In light of this:

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said President Obama is not considering a forceful overthrow of current Syrian leadership

My opinion is: If you aren't ready to make either side "Holler 'nuff",
stay the heck out.

.................

When one intervenes in a dogfight one usually gets bit.
If I recall correctly Syria acquired a sophisticated anti-aircraft defense system from Russia back about the time we blew up that Korean reactor in their desert.

It's no place for dilettante US statesmen .
Don't take your guns to town, boys.

And that's my opinion.

 

[kith]

Probably because he wants to win his war and chemical weapons are effective.

This advantage is outweighed by far by the risk of an intervention of western countries.

 

[jim hardy]

The billions we will spend of this "political statement" could be much better spent on providing humanitarian care in Syria ...

it's not like that would cost a lot

A friend of mine drives a truck for a big rice farm near here. He said they're busy plowing nine million bushels back into the ground for want of enough storage bins. And that's just one rice farm.

 

[cdux]

Any war where outsiders intervened to help rebels overthrow their rulers, from the American Revolution to Libya, with many in between.

I'm in disbelief you actually believe that.

Do you seriously think the US government goes into wars in the Middle East for Altruism alone?

 

[russ_watters]

This advantage is outweighed by far by the risk of an intervention of western countries.

Not really, no. As the second link I posted a few posts above details, Obama told him pretty explicitly on multiple occasions that we would do little to nothing: no ground troops, no no fly zone, no attempt to overthrow him and no action outside the UN (which Russia would veto anyway). That plus the lack of response to his test use a few months ago sends him a pretty clear message that the risk is low compared to the scope of the problem that the war represents for him.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm in disbelief you actually believe that.

Do you seriously think the US government goes into wars in the Middle East for Altruism alone?

I didn't say that and it isn't what you asked. You're goalpost shifting and cherry picking.

 

[lisab]

I'd like to ask again why almost nobody questions who used the chemical weapons. Why on Earth should Assad do so in the current situation?

I agree, it seemed very odd to me. But people frequently do things that are so stupid I can't fathom their reasoning.

This was just released:

Last Wednesday, in the hours after a horrific chemical attack east of Damascus, an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people. Those conversations were overheard by U.S. intelligence services, The Cable has learned. And that is the major reason why American officials now say they're certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar al-Assad regime -- and why the U.S. military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/p...cepted_calls_prove_syrias_army_used_nerve_gas

So who within the Assad government made the call to use a chemical weapon? Hard to say, but apparently it came as a big surprise to at least one official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense.

 

[russ_watters]

I have a very hard time figuring why some people want the US to jump into Syria.

As a person with morals, the death of 100,000 civilians at the hands of a dictator gives me pain. And the upping of the ante by using chemical weapons puts it squarely in the "war crimes" category. It tells me that if we do nothing, things are likely to get a lot worse.

Pursuing a diplomatic goal at the barrel of a gun is foolhardy...

You should tell that to the Kuwaitis and Libyans - unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "diplomatic goal".

IMO, we should let the players in Syria take car of themselves.

Since I'm arguing a contrarian position here (which doesn't require stating my position), I want to make it clear where I stand, so there is no confusion:

1. Use of chemical weapons against civilians is despicable, immoral, illegal, and therefore demands action by the international community.

2. I am fully aware that action by us to stop the war in Syria is probably against our self-interest. Our self-interest is probably best served by letting the two sides destroy each other for as long as they can (saying that gives me the urge to take a shower). Because while they are doing that, they are less interested in attacking us or Israel. But note: this should be an indication that any action by US (/the West in general) has mostly a benevolent intent. I'm a moral person and an idealist. I would give a dying criminal first-aid and I would help the civilian relatives of terrorists avoid being gassed. If their terrorist relatives thank me, great. If they still hate me, that's disappointing, but I'd help anyway.

3. So how do I reconcile 1 and 2? Not easily. As I said earlier in the thread, I would err on the side of being against the immoral, murderous criminal dictator even if the other side doesn't appear much better. At this point, they'd be hard-pressed to be worse. I'm dithering a bit, but what I can say for sure is:
A. No ground troops.
B. We need an action strong enough to prevent or deter the use of WMDs in the future. If a few airstrikes would do it, great (I doubt it, but that appears to be the likely response). If a no fly zone and ground-attack aircraft (to destroy chemical weapons bearing artillery and transports) could get it done, I would support it. If it tips the balance of power and deposes Assad, I'd be fine with it.

4. As Lisa (and a lot of news articles these days) points out, WMDs are a more arbitrary red line than people tend to say in speeches. There isn't much fundamental difference between a nuke and any other large bomb. Chemical weapons are just another way to kill a lot of people. What matters is who you are killing. The chemical weapons are being used against civilians, as a terror weapon. That's what makes them bad. But the only reason they represent a "red line" is because international law says so, not because they suddenly made the war a lot worse in practical terms. My "red line" was crossed long ago (which is why I started this thread last year and its predecessor two years ago).

5. Screw the UN (especially Russia and China). It will be interesting to see what Obama does in the next few days, but it seems likely that he will not get UN approval to act, but will do so anyway. If so, he will have learned the lessson Clinton learned: the UN is not a legitimate organization when it comes to taking action to defend its moral principles. It is a farce, where the insane run the asylum. If acting is the right thing to do, history will not look favorably upon not doing it because some rogue nations didn't want him to. If it isn't the right thing to do, history won't look favorably upon doing it, regardless of if he has UN support (see: Bush-Iraq). Either way, the stance of the UN is not relevant to history's judgement.

 

[kith]

Not really, no. As the second link I posted a few posts above details, Obama told him pretty explicitly on multiple occasions that we would do little to nothing: no ground troops, no no fly zone, no attempt to overthrow him and no action outside the UN (which Russia would veto anyway). That plus the lack of response to his test use a few months ago sends him a pretty clear message that the risk is low compared to the scope of the problem that the war represents for him.

This line of reasoning already assumes that the regime is responsible for all the bad things happening which is the very thing I am questioning. Also I don't agree with your main point here: Assad knows that using chemical weapons against civilians is considered so evil that the international community is forced to react. Even given Obamas statements, it is a tremendously risky betting game how this reaction will look like. You only play such a game if you are desperate and my impression is not only that Assad's position isn't desperate but that it is much better than it had already been.

 

[turbo]

The US does not have the moral high ground in the case of chemical weapons. Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces and against the Kurds (their own people).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

At the time, Saddam was America's bully-boy in the ME, and the US provided him with military equipment and satellite intelligence so he could carry out his attacks. There is a lot of bad stuff going on in Syria, but this fixation on chemical weapons/nerve agents ignores the past of our own government. I agree that the use of chemical weapons/nerve agents is reprehensible, but I have a hard time justifying the use of US military because of that, given our own country's sad record in this regard.

War sucks. Indiscriminate killing sucks worse. And IMO there is nothing more indiscriminate than chemical warfare.

 

[nsaspook]

This line of reasoning already assumes that the regime is responsible for all the bad things happening which is the very thing I am questioning. Also I don't agree with your main point here: Assad knows that using chemical weapons against civilians is considered so evil that the international community is forced to react. Even given Obamas statements, it is a tremendously risky betting game how this reaction will look like. You only play such a game if you are desperate and my impression is not only that Assad's position isn't desperate but that it is much better than it had already been.

The limited point of this upcoming attack (and statement of policy) is that chemical weapons against civilians (by either side) will not be tolerated because we don't like to see pictures of children dying "that way". The friends with weapons and money on both sides will restrain their forces for the required duration and then on with the show. Weighting who is the most evil of two evils is pointless because does anyone really believe the other sides leaders would not do the same thing if the roles were switched.

The current mess in Syria reminds me of the later phases of the Lebanese Civil War where the US learned a hard lesson about the limits of intervention. International intervention

 

[phoenix:\\]

As a person with morals, the death of 100,000 civilians at the hands of a dictator gives me pain. And the upping of the ante by using chemical weapons puts it squarely in the "war crimes" category. It tells me that if we do nothing, things are likely to get a lot worse.

100k people didn't die by chemical weapons, so you must distinguish between the two as later in your post you say we should enter because chemical weapons were used and that's illegal.

In addition, I would like to know your limit. Any in house dispute of a country with a death toll of 100,000 should be a cause for intervention? I would like to know this personally as I would like to know what morality you are basing this on.

"Moral" is a blanket term, you must define your morality before establishing it as the imperative to enter a foreign conflict unaffiliated with the U.S..

The limited point of this upcoming attack (and statement of policy) is that chemical weapons against civilians (by either side) will not be tolerated because we don't like to see pictures of children dying "that way".

as opposed to dying much, much more slowly because of either shrapnel, or molecular damage to cells via nuclear weapons? Just because one doesn't like seeing children die by use of chemical weapons and would rather see them blown to bits because they only see a flash of light, doesn't make chemical weapons wrong. It just means the people that refused to look for alternatives cannot stomach what they have caused or cannot stomach what war is, so they try to think it full of dandelions and trees blowing blissfully as the ocean beats upon the shores of the beach... A full throttle delusion they try to envelope themselves in without seeing the consequences of war.

Ah... these same types of people refuse to see the damage the war causes in its aftermath as well. The children whom's parents died, or vice-versa of children dying and parents living. The emotional toll of war is much, much greater than any use of chemical weapons. But, so as long as people sit comfortably knowing that only nuclear weapons (can be termed chemical if you want to get technical), varying types of guns, and tanks are being used, its just, "Another conflict," and not, "An outrage!"

War in and of itself is wrong, once you pass that threshold and consider it good and right under the circumstances, all morality and "proper" forms of war become irrelevant. I find anyone declaring there to be a proper form of war to be foolish. There is none. It will and will always be a depraved act of humanity at its lowest and most base self. All human dignity and integrity is gone when war erupts.

 

[jim hardy]

wellll, that's one way to look at it.
But what if your white corpuscles take up that mindset ?

War and courage have done more great things than charity. Not your sympathy, but your bravery has saved the unfotunate. nietzsche

 

[phoenix:\\]

My white blood cells do not destroy parts of my body to help me stay safe.

As for the quote, Nietzche... I never found his views appealing or remotely wise. But I guess he believed in (in my opinion) of wisdom reaching not from current man but developing anew through destruction of old, conservative views of wisdom (parable of a madman). Given that, I guess he found his enlightenment although still... nothing that set him entirely apart from being just another shock-jock of the 19 century. I'd stick with Fuerbach or Kierkegaard (excluding the god stuff if that is not your type of thing); at least they have wise words to impart on a newer generation, and not societal destruction for restoration! I don't know about you but that sounds like a new-age cult's ideology to me.

"He who joyfully marches to the rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the spinal cord would suffice." ~ Albert Einstein

 

[russ_watters]

I'll come back to the other points later, but:

War in and of itself is wrong...

This and other similar pacifist platitudes (war is not the answer, wars never solve anything) are just plain nonsense/wrong -- even meaningless ("wrong" in your statement is a value judgement, but there are logical/factual flaws in the application). If one side wants a war, the other side had best show up and fight because the alternative is to be overrun. And once they overrun you, your enemy will be quite happy to listen to diplomacy and acquire peace: because they've already won the war! History is littered with examples of this. From WWII Europe to Iraq/Kuwait 1990. Both are also examples of wars partially caused by diplomacy (appeasement).

In this case, the war already exists, so the question of war being "wrong" is irrelevant. It is here. Choosing not to have it isn't an option for us: Telling the Syrians it is wrong is not going to make them stop (people have been telling them for 2.5 years). We could of course choose not to join, but the reality is that what ends wars is usually decisive victory, not diplomacy. Just ask the Koreans, who are technically still at war. Or Iraq. Or Germany. Or Japan. Or England circa 1815.

 

[phoenix:\\]

You have mistaken me to be a pacifistic. There are times when war is necessary, however, that doesn't make war a moral right, it is still wrong but can be seen as a necessary course of action (depending on the circumstances and thought). War can never be a good thing because of its very nature. Saying, "well, it being wrong is irrelevant," misses the point. War is never good which is what we all should recognize and by people seeing it as a wrong and not a right, different methods can be developed to deal with other governments hell-bent on war.

My gripe within that post is knowing that war is wrong and that the use of chemical weapons is a direct result of war, the use of chemical weapons in a depraved act, is never wrong if a war has erupted. There is something wrong with the very logic people are using today calling the use of chemical weapons an immoral action as there can never be a morally right action in the midst of war between warring nations. In other words, once you cross that line, any use of weaponry, and use of tactics, are allowed because both parties have forgone their reason.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't support military intervention by the west. At the very least there needs to be more time to let UN inspectors to do their work and return with solid data. What I would support though is immediate delivery of medical supplies, particularly Nerve Agent Antidote Kits, to as many people as possible in areas of conflict.

 

[nsaspook]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_SYRIA_INTELLIGENCE_DOUBTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-08-29-03-11-56

Intelligence officials say they could not pinpoint the exact locations of Assad's supplies of chemical weapons, and Assad could have moved them in recent days as the U.S. rhetoric increased. But.that lack of certainty means a possible series of U.S. cruise missile strikes aimed at crippling Assad's military infrastructure could hit newly hidden supplies of chemical weapons, accidentally triggering a deadly chemical attack.

I think we need to step back and be damn sure before any action as Assad could easily rig an incident that could be blamed on us.

 

[fargoth]

Since Obama said last year chemical weapons are a red line - the US has to do something.
The implications of not doing anything after threatening are very bad in the long run, since Syria as well as other renegade regimes might take it as a sign that they can do these things and get away with it.
Syria has used chemical weapons before, and the US did nothing - so they continued to use them, upping the ante every time.
Had Obama remained silent regarding chemical weapons in the first place, the US would have been better off staying out of this conflict.

There are enough places to do good for humankind where the resources of this intervention could have been tunneled to - so the moral argument is moot.

 

[jim hardy]

Since Obama said last year chemical weapons are a red line - the US has to do something.

He could admit the mistake.

 

[jim hardy]

Who's the liar?


http://syrianfreepress.wordpress.co...nufactured-chemical-weapons-outside-damascus/

On the 21st of August 2013 several western and Arab TV channels reported that chemical agents had been used in the Damascus suburbs of Ain Tarma, Zamalka and Jobar. According to the media, between 20 and 625 people died as a result of an attack with the use of shells containing the sarin nerve gas.

Representatives of the opposition claim that it was the Syrian army that used chemical weapons. A spokesman for the Syrian government has announced that this statement is a far cry from reality and is aimed at disrupting the UN experts’ work.

Russia has announced that, according to its information, on the 21st of August chemical agents were used in the suburbs of Damascus by the opposition units and not by President Bashar al-Assad’s army. Accusations against the government troops are based on unverified information.

On the 21st of August the UN Security Council held an extraordinary meeting and called for a thorough investigation of the reports about the tragedy in the suburbs of Damascus. Russia shares the view that a comprehensive investigation is indispensable. It can be carried out by the UN experts already stationed in Syria.

 

[fargoth]

He could admit the mistake.

Well, that wouldn't help much, since he would still have to hold true to his word...
If he would just say, "uhm, I re-examined our priorities... chemical weapons are just dandy as far as we're concerned" - then he would signal all other renegade countries that it's alright to do whatever they want, even if the US warns them - just as long as they don't directly harm US's interests.

The US should reserve it's warnings only to the cases in which it is willing to act on them - empty warnings are worse than none (see what it did the UN's power)