Obama’s red line on Syria – can he win the case for action?

“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it”, as Harvard philosopher George Santayana put it – and it is the very fresh memories of western entanglement in Iraq and Afghanistan which overshadow everything.

President Obama, on his way to a G20 meeting in Russia which will be completely dominated by the prospect of international action, insisted he had no intention of repeating the intelligence mistakes of the Iraq war: as far as Syria is concerned, he said, the evidence of chemical weapons was crystal clear.

“I didn’t set a red line”, he declared, “the world set a red line”, with a succession of international treaties and congressional votes which declared the use of chemical weapons outside the law.

This was a president finally putting his case for action, morally, politically and pragmatically, as he headed towards the very country which has become the biggest stumbling block to any kind of international consensus.

Of course, China has repeated its objections to unilateral action against Syria by the US, repeating its somewhat futile call for a political solution to the crisis. But Russia’s attitude is appearing ever more difficult to define.

I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line. President Obama

Earlier on Wednesday, it seemed that President Putin was hinting at a possible zone of agreement, when he said he would “not rule out” approving military action, as long as the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime was proven.

Later, though, some of the old emnity began showing through, as Putin railed against US secretary of state John Kerry, accusing him of lying to Congress about the state of al Qaeda’s involvement in Syria.

But for Obama, as much as for other western leaders, there remains the challenge of trying to win around a sceptical public, too wary of becoming bogged down in yet another Midddle Eastern conflict, or worse, generating yet more instability throughout the world.

In Britain, David Cameron has, for now, ruled out a second Commons vote on intervention, and the latest poll shows two thirds of voters oppose the prospect of airstrikes against Syrian targets.

Syria intervention cannot be compared to Iraq read Lindsey Hilsum's 29 August blog

French politcians are currently holding a debate on military action, with many deputies demanding a vote of their own.

And in the United States, there is more evidence that the old era of political consensus over national security is well and truly over, with the parties well and truly divided over what to do.

An end to consensus

The president’s top national security aides will be on Capitol Hill on Wednesday for more hearings, pressing their case for punitive miltiary strikes against the Assad regime in response to last month’s sarin gas attack on the outskirts of Damascus.

Senior Republicans have now swung their support behind the White House, including Senate majority leader John Boehner. The Senate foreign relations committee also hammered out a draft resolution which would allow a “limited and tailored” mission, a strict 90 day timeframe, and prohibits any American ground troops from getting involved.

However, there was disappointment for those who hoped to build the broadest possible coalition, as one of the leading figures on the Senate panel, John McCain, announced he did not support the proposal. “There are a number of people who are unhappy”, he said.

Presumably this disapproval came despite the fact that the senator admitted he had been playing poker on his phone during the lengthy debate on Syria, after his game was caught on camera.

Scandal! Caught playing iPhone game at 3+ hour Senate hearing – worst of all I lost!

— John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) September 3, 2013

But in the partisan world of Washington politics, it is Obama who is effectively gambling everything in a giant poker game, one with potentially world-changing consequences. As he told reporters today, he was not obliged to seek the approval of Congress.

Instead, the kind of strategic debate which is normally confined behind the sound-proofed doors of the situation room is being played out in public. Americans, at this point, anyway, are in no mood for war.

The latest polls are proof enough: a survey for ABC and the Washington Post found 59 per cent opposed air strikes, with just 36 per cent in support. Pew Research found Democrats and Republicans to be equally divided pver the issue.

And the reason for this reluctance to get inolved? 74 per cent told Pew they feared that air strikes would lead to a backlash agains the United States, while almost two thirds said it would mean another long term military commitment in the region.

History is full of moments where someone didn’t stand up and act when it made a difference John Kerry, US Secretary of State

For their representatives in Congress, fresh from their summer break, local concerns and the prospect of re-election weighing heavy, reaching a decision is not proving easy.

For opponents of military force, there are fears that even targeted, limited action could simply spark a wider chaos, fray international relations still further, or do nothing to deal with the actual problem – Syria’s use of chemical weapons.

It is not just conservatives and isolationists blocking the way ahead. Newly elected Democratic congresswoman Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq veteran, is one of those opposing intervention – claiming that it’s simply not in US interests.

A key progressive group which has raised millions for Democratic campaign coffers has even sent around a memo setting out its case, warning the president: “Your progressive base stands firmly against military action in Syria”.

Divided they stand

For Obama’s supporters, it is just the right thing to do. “History”, declared John Kerry. “is full of moments where someone didn’t stand up and act when it made a difference”. What if Assad did it again? What (whisper it loudly) if Iran got the same idea?

With goals as unclear and a mission so ill defined, at least Obama has now begun trying to win round the sceptics, in the hope that the public will follow.

He was wrong, though, about one thing – his credibility is on the line as much as America’s. Such is the fragility of nations in the face of war. Perhaps even those who remember the past are inevitably condemned to repeat it.

Felicity Spector writes about US affairs for Channel 4 News