At last

In a statement this evening, deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said:

Following a deliberative review, our intelligence community assesses that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year.  Our intelligence community has high confidence in that assessment given multiple, independent streams of information.  The intelligence community estimates that 100 to 150 people have died from detected chemical weapons attacks in Syria to date; however, casualty data is likely incomplete.  While the lethality of these attacks make up only a small portion of the catastrophic loss of life in Syria, which now stands at more than 90,000 deaths, the use of chemical weapons violates international norms and crosses clear red lines that have existed within the international community for decades. We believe that the Assad regime maintains control of these weapons.  We have no reliable, corroborated reporting to indicate that the opposition in Syria has acquired or used chemical weapons.

The consequences that follow from this are, however, not yet clear.  Ben said this much:

Put simply, the Assad regime should know that its actions have led us to increase the scope and scale of assistance that we provide to the opposition, including direct support to the [opposition] Supreme Military Council. These efforts will increase going forward.

The rest is left vague:

The United States and the international community have a number of other legal, financial, diplomatic, and military responses available.  We are prepared for all contingencies, and we will make decisions on our own timeline.  Any future action we take will be consistent with our national interest, and must advance our objectives, which include achieving a negotiated political settlement to establish an authority that can provide basic stability and administer state institutions; protecting the rights of all Syrians; securing unconventional and advanced conventional weapons; and countering terrorist activity.

That last bit in governmentese is the “end-state” we seek. It is important, as courses of action are designed with the end-state as their target.

Rumint (or maybe I should call it pressint, but I’m not providing a link because I despise the Wall Street Journal pay wall) has it that Washington is contemplating both arming the opposition and establishing a no-fly zone in northern Syria, along the Turkish border.  These are the two options least likely to provoke the Russians and Chinese.  Certainly maintaining their participation in the P5+1 talks with Iran is an unstated part of the end-state Obama seeks.

I’m not sure what to make of this statement being put out by Ben, who is close to the President but a couple of steps down in the White House pecking order.  I imagine someone higher up didn’t want the privilege, since the steps to be taken are still not fully defined.  Certainly the president could not have put out a statement of this sort without being ridiculed for indecisiveness, lack of resolve and being behind the curve.  It may well be that Ben pushed for something to be said and ended up with the not entirely edifying responsibility.

The reluctance to act is palpable.  But we are on what some think of as a slippery slope.  The question is how far we will go.  Only time will tell.