How should the US react to a 'moral obscenity' in Syria?

 
US Secretary of State John Kerry speaks on Syria at the State Department in Washington, DC, 26 August 2013 Kerry said the US would take "an informed decision" on how to respond to the use of chemical weapons

US Secretary of State John Kerry has denounced the Syrian government for attacking its own people with chemical weapons in a highly-charged, emotional, statement.

He appeared to be preparing the ground for military action, while giving away no details of what will be done.

Mr Kerry said what happened was a moral obscenity that should shock the world and offend "our basic sense of humanity".

What else do we learn from his words?

Start Quote

Anyone with queasy memories of "dossiers" before the Iraq war will realise that this will come under a lot of scrutiny”

End Quote

The Obama administration does not need any further evidence that this was a chemical attack and that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was to blame.

Mr Kerry said the facts were "screaming" out from the pictures, common sense led to one conclusion, and that giving access to the inspectors came "too late to be credible".

But he said that evidence had been collected and would be presented.

Anyone with queasy memories of "dossiers" before the Iraq War will realise that this will come under a lot of scrutiny.

The latest survey indicates 45% of Americans would back an attack on Syria if it had used chemical weapons, but there is still a job to be done persuading the public at home. Mr Kerry said Congress was being consulted.

China and Russia have both warned against an attack, which may mean the US intends to bypass the UN Security Council.

Certainly Mr Kerry did not mention the UN but it would be counter to Mr Obama's instincts not to build wide international support for any action.

All that leaves the question of what will happen, and when.

Mr Kerry left no doubt that action would be taken - he said those who carried out heinous crimes had to be held accountable. He said the president would take "an informed decision" - the same curious formulation used in a Sunday's statement from a White House official.

The administration has deliberately left itself almost no room for manoeuvre - its credibility would now be zero if it failed to take some form of military action.

But there is no sense of a time scale, the scope of any attack, or indeed the limits of its aims.

 
Mark Mardell Article written by Mark Mardell Mark Mardell Presenter, The World This Weekend

Could Greece prompt wholesale change in Europe?

The triumph of Syriza in Greece could lead to renewed tensions - and widespread political change - across Europe, says Mark Mardell.

Read full article

More on This Story

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 351.

    338. Jackturk
    If the US were really the bully, then all others would align with Russia/China against us. Eastern Europeans know Russia and stay with us. The Asians know China & Russia and stay with us. Your agitprop has improved but is still very obvious.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 350.

    The propagandists on both sides are having a field day here. In reality ALL foreigners and ALL military supplies should be removed/embargoed. That includes Russian/Iranian/Chinese as well as US/EU. The only just way is to starve both sides into an internal settlement.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 349.

    105 Jim Squeechy God’s Law = Leviticus = Shariah, NO thanks.
    112 We learned sneaky and corporate imperialism from Brits & French. Unfortunately we seem to be studying brutality now from Russians.

    134 Hillwalker Hubris & miscalculation are not only western, Saddam made some, Mao made many.

    168 Dr Bob Matthews All militaries have plans prepared, even for alien invasion, so what? No aliens!

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 348.

    347.sieuarlu
    " It would clearly be unconstitutional for the US to abrogate its power or rights of any of its citizens to an outside organization such as the ICC"

    Yet it expects others to do exactly that. In addition it illegally renders citizens to other countries for the purposes of interrogation and torture. When a country deliberately closes its eyes to its own criminal behaviour it's doomed.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 347.

    946 It would clearly be unconstitutional for the US to abrogate its power or rights of any of its citizens to an outside organization such as the ICC.The US government does not have the power to aid and abet the possible abrogation of the constitutional right of Americans by an international organization.I think a good legal case could be made for invalidating many other treaties the US signed.

 

Comments 5 of 351

 

Features

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.