After Arming the Rebels, Then What?

After Arming the Rebels, Then What?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/opinion/after-arming-the-rebels-then-what.html
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: June 14, 2013

President Obama boxed himself into a corner when he said last year that Syria’s use of chemical weapons against its people would be crossing a “red line” that could prompt a direct American response. Now that the United States has concluded with “high confidence” that President Bashar al-Assad has crossed that line, Mr. Obama had to follow through on his threat. As The Times reported, the administration has decided to begin supplying the rebels with small arms and ammunition.

That step would be a modest escalation of American involvement in response to the use of the nerve agent sarin, which was confirmed by the American intelligence. The White House said there were multiple incidents over the past year that caused an estimated 100 to 150 deaths. But that is a tiny fraction of the 93,000 Syrians believed killed in the civil war, now in its third year.

Nevertheless, Mr. Obama’s decision is highly significant because it opens the door to an even larger American role. Anti-tank weapons are also a real possibility. The White House said the chemical weapons finding had changed Mr. Obama’s calculus about the war but had not explained what that meant.

Mr. Obama has demonstrated a prudent reluctance to intervene directly in Syria’s civil war. Can the United States arm the rebels and avoid becoming enmeshed in another Middle East war? How will the administration keep weapons out of the hands of rebels who are affiliated with Al Qaeda and other jihadi groups? Does Mr. Obama believe this move will persuade Russia to stop arming Syria — or might it provoke President Vladimir Putin to ship even more supplies?

Chemical weapons are not the only factor driving the administration’s decision. Although Mr. Obama and others predicted long ago that Mr. Assad would fall to the rebels, the Syrian leader is still in power, and his forces — aided by Iran and Hezbollah militants — have scored significant strategic advances in recent weeks. Rebel leaders allied with the West have pleaded for assistance beyond the medicine and food already provided by Washington; other promised aid, like night vision goggles and body armor, apparently has not arrived.

Mr. Obama has also come under increasing attack from a small number of American politicians, including former President Bill Clinton, who this week said Mr. Obama risks looking “lame” for not doing more to help the rebels. It was a cheap shot leveled at an event hosted by Sen. John McCain, Republican of Arizona, a leading advocate of aggressive action in Syria. It is irresponsible for critics like Mr. McCain and Mr. Clinton to fault Mr. Obama without explaining how the United States can change the course of that brutal civil war without being dragged too far into it.

Like most Americans, we are deeply uneasy about getting pulled into yet another war in the Middle East. Those urging stronger action seemed to have learned nothing from the past decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, which has sapped the United States and has produced results that are ambiguous at best.