90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
Here and Now with Robin Young
Public radio's live
midday news program
With sponsorship from
Mathworks - Accelerating the pace of engineering and science
Accelerating the pace
of engineering and science
Friday, August 30, 2013

Obama: U.S. Has Obligation As World Leader To Act

President Barack Obama speaks to members of the media during his meeting with Baltic leaders in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington, Friday, Aug. 30, 2013. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

President Barack Obama speaks to members of the media during his meeting with Baltic leaders in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington, Friday, Aug. 30, 2013. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

Update 2:50 PM: President Barack Obama says he recognizes the world and the U.S. are war-weary in the face of potential military action against Syria.

But he says the United States has an obligation “as a leader in the world” to hold countries accountable if they violate international norms.

Obama says he has strong preference for multilateral action. But he says, quote, “we don’t want the world to be paralyzed.”

Regarding the U.N., Obama says, quote, “there is an incapacity for the Security Council to move forward.”

Despite a vote in Britain against taking action in Syria, Obama indicates that France is with him.

Obama’s comments came as his administration made its intelligence case against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad for a chemical attack against civilians earlier this month.

Secretary of State John Kerry makes a statement about Syria at the State Department in Washington, Friday, Aug. 30, 2013. (Charles Dharapak/AP)

Secretary of State John Kerry makes a statement about Syria at the State Department in Washington, Friday, Aug. 30, 2013. (Charles Dharapak/AP)

1:35 PM: Secretary of State John Kerry says the U.S. knows based on intelligence that the Syrian regime carefully prepared for days to launch a chemical weapons attack.

Kerry says Syrian regime personnel were at the site of the attack for three days beforehand, making preparations.

He says regime elements were told to prepare by putting on gas masks.

Kerry says the U.S. also knows where the rockets were launched from. He says the rockets came from regime-controlled areas.

Kerry also says a senior regime official confirmed that the weapons were used and was afraid it would be discovered.

The U.S. is releasing a public report on intelligence gathered about last week’s deadly attack. President Barack Obama is preparing for a possible military strike in response.




PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: A chemical weapons attack that killed well over a thousand people, including hundreds of children. This follows the horrific images that shocked us all.

This kind of attack is a challenge to the world. We cannot accept a world where women and children and innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale. This kind of attack threatens our national security interests by violating well-established international norms against the use of chemical weapons by further threatening friends and allies of ours in the region like Israel and Turkey and Jordan. And it increases the risk that chemical weapons will be used in the future and fall into the hands of terrorists who might use them against us.

So I have said before, and I meant what I said, that the world has an obligation to make sure that we maintain the norm against the use of chemical weapons.

Now, I have not made a final decision about various actions that might be taken to help enforce that norm. But as I've already said, I have had my military and our team look at a wide range of options. We have consulted with allies. We've consulted with Congress. We've been in conversations with all the interested parties.

And in no event are we considering any kind of military action that would involve boots on the ground, that would involve a long-term campaign. But we are looking at the possibility of a limited, narrow act that would help make sure that not only Syria but others around the world understands that the international community cares about maintaining this chemical weapons ban and norm.

But again, I repeat, we're not considering any open-ended commitment. We're not considering any boots-on-the-ground approach. What we will do is consider options that meet the narrow concern around chemical weapons, understanding that there's not going to be a solely military solution to the underlying conflict and tragedy that's taking place in Syria. And I will continue to consult closely with Congress.

In addition to the release of the unclassified document, we are providing a classified briefing to congressional staffs today, and we'll offer that same classified briefing to members of Congress, as well as our international partners. And I will continue to provide updates to the American people as we get more information.

With that, I want to welcome President Ilves, President Grybauskaite, and President Berzins to the White House. These countries that they represent all share very deep ties to the United States, both as allies and because of the extraordinary people, the people relations that we have with these countries.

I want to thank all the presidents who are here and their nations for all that they do to promote democracy, not only in their own countries but around the world. And the Baltics are among our most reliable allies in NATO. And our commitment...


We're listening to the president of the United States speaking moments ago at the White House, making comments about Syria just about an hour after Secretary of State John Kerry made comments about Syria and made the case for U.S. action against Syria. I want to bring in our guests, Rick Klein, political director for - of ABC News, Chris Harmer, senior naval analyst at the Institute for the Study of War, and Bob Scales is a retired Army major general and former commandant of the Army War College.

Rick Klein, first to you. The president said there he has not made a final decision, but this just after John Kerry said that the use of chemical weapons was a crime against conscience. It matters to us and it matters to who we are. It matters to leadership and our credibility in the world. What do you make of that?

RICK KLEIN: I think it is a pretty fine semantic argument being made here. It's clear that the United States is going to act. The decision to act has already been made. The question of timing, the question of precisely what that act may be, maybe the decision that we're talking about here. It's unfathomable to me that the president of the United States would be out there talking about this is a challenge to the world community and is such an affront to humanity, and then there not be an action that follows it very shortly.

In fact, the delay, as it is, has got a lot of people asking what the hold up really is. There are still U.N. inspectors on the ground. That changes tomorrow. The assumption in Washington and certain people I've talked to is that the window for actual action opens up sometime tomorrow.


Yeah. And Army Major Gen. Bob Scales, it did sound as if he was saying, you know, we're going. We just haven't decided how. But he did underscore in a limited, narrow act that would send a message that the U.S. cares about keeping the norm against the use of chemical weapons. No boots on the ground, no campaign, no open-end commitment. You say what?

MAJOR GEN. ROBERT H. SCALES: Well, I say the Syrian army is breathing a huge sigh of relief, number one. And number two, once the president talks, it's all in. I think the debates are over. I think we can start counting down the days, hours until this strike goes in. And sadly, what it also means is the president just said, particularly to the Syrians and the rest of the world, that's going to be all there is.

To Chris' point earlier, it would've been nice if he would've said that, for instance, we're going to redouble our efforts to supply the Free Syrian Army and the moderates with substantial, effective modern weapons that are capable of killing tanks and shooting down airplanes. He didn't do that. He didn't say words to the effect that if this first strike doesn't work, be prepared. There may be a second strike. Nor did he commit the U.S. military to any form of long-term engagement in Syria. So what this is, is a one-pulse, one-shot, feel-good strike, after that, we back off and let the war continue.

HOBSON: He actually said he's not considering any open-ended commitment or boots on the ground. Chris Harmer, let me bring you in with your thoughts on what we heard from the president.

CHRIS HARMER: Sure. I'd like to echo what General Scales said regarding a huge sigh of relief out of the Syrian Arab army. They know this attack is coming and they know then that it's been pretty well-bounded as a limited attack, not an ongoing issue. And as a result, they're taking their concentrations of forces there, disbursing them. That makes a lot more difficult for U.S. cruise missiles to strike.

Cruise missiles are very effective long-range weapons against what we call soft to medium targets, targets that are static, that are not heavily defended. An example of this would be a fixed radar site at an airport. You can take that out very easily with a cruise missile. We were talking about mobile issues, you know, like Scud missiles on their truck. If those are moving around, a cruise missile can do that, but it's very difficult and it really does require a significant degree of intelligence that we're just not going to have.

So the Syrian Arab Army right now is saying, we're going to take some medicine, we're going to take a slap on the wrist, but structurally, fundamentally, nothing is going to change. One follow-on on comment, if we have no open-ended commitment here, then, by default, we're saying we have no strategic interest.

YOUNG: Yeah.

HARMER: If we have a strategic interest, that means we have to have a full commitment. The absence of a full commitment just means this is a statement and a posture.

YOUNG: Well, we're circling back to where we were a while back which is that this is seen as a punitive and people in Britain and Parliament yesterday were questioning, is this what war is now, that you punish people? But then others say, if you've got a contractual agreement in a treaty, you have to respond to things like chemical attacks. Rick Klein, just what do you think - we have a few minutes left here - what do you think the president is facing? And by the way, anyone jump in, what's the legality here? What does he have to do to guarantee to who that this is legal and the right thing to do?

KLEIN: What's so interesting to me about this, Robin, is that a lot of this is responding to the president's own action. He's the one that drew the red line a year ago. And that is what has put him in the position now of needing to respond. The President of the United States goes out and says, if you do this, I will get you. It's like a parent that tells the kid that they're not going to get dinner. If you don't - if you then give them dinner anyway, they're going to go do it the next time. That's (unintelligible).

YOUNG: But Cameron didn't draw a red line, and felt that he's obligated by treaties to respond.

KLEIN: And Cameron lost the vote in Parliament...

YOUNG: Right.

KLEIN: ...you know, in part because he wasn't able to make that case. And I don't think he'd be able - the President of the United States should be able to make that case to the Congress. We saw even Jimmy Carter say that he thinks that this would be extralegal without congressional authorization, without the use of international bodies, this part of it. I think there are legal arguments that I'm not equipped to engage in, but there's a political argument around this of what American power means and what you can do, as President of the United States, if you're not seen as making good on your commitments, the message that then...

YOUNG: Yeah.

KLEIN: ...to other regimes that we're not friendly with.

YOUNG: But General Scales, were you going to pick up on the legal?

SCALES: Yeah. I was going to say remember now the chemical weapons convention is a norm, not a law. The international laws of war say there are two reasons, legitimate reasons, casus belli, say, if we're going to war. Number one, is that if the international community from the U.N. Security Council votes to go to war, and number two, if you are directly threatened by an imminent enemy strike that falls under four categories: to deter, to dissuade, to defeat or defend. That's the law. And things like punitive or punishment or retribution are written nowhere in the laws of war.

HOBSON: And Rick Klein, back to you, we've got the latest poll from NBC Wall Street Journal says - or just an NBC News poll; half of all Americans said they wouldn't support military action against the Syrian government. Nearly 80 percent want President Obama to seek approval from Congress before taking any action. And from what it sounds like today, and we spoke with Congressman Engel earlier, he said it could be just a matter of days before there's action.

KLEIN: Yeah, that's right. And what I think is so fascinating is that you'd have the president without the sanction of an international body, such as U.N., without the sanction of Congress and - according to this poll, at least tonight, and some other polls will bear it out in subsequent days - without the support of the American people moving on this. And the president sometimes has to make very unpopular decisions.

But let me say that this president doesn't do it very often. There hasn't been many chances - or in his presidency - are many windows in his presidency where he does something that is known to be politically unpopular, known to not have the majority support of Congress or the people. This puts him in a bit of a different spot than normal.

HOBSON: Rick Klein, a political director at ABC News. We've also been speaking with Chris Harmer, senior naval analyst at the Institute for the Study of War and Bob Scales, a retired Army Major General and former Commandant of the Army War College. Thanks to all of you.

YOUNG: And of course you can continue to follow the story by staying right here at your NPR station. We will continue to follow it for you. Been an extraordinary day - first, hearing from the secretary of state, John Kerry, laying out the Obama administration case for responding to chemical attacks in Syria; and then just recently, hearing from President Obama underscoring that, although not hearing what some of the choices are that the White House is considering. We'll continue to follow this.

From NPR and WBUR Boston, I'm Robin Young.

HOBSON: I'm Jeremy Hobson. This is HERE AND NOW. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • susan

    A stirring speech from a senior statesman that will long be remembered–perhaps for uniting the American people behind a cause, which sadly is quite rare in modern times, but also perhaps for triggering serious repercussions from Russia and friends. It seems we have moved beyond brinksmanship into dangerous but necessary waters.

  • Matt McGraw

    Kerry can use whatever justifications he wants, just like Bush Sr and Jr did. This is still morally wrong. Kerry says we can’t just “hope for peace”, but attacking a sovereign nation doesn’t move us any closer to peace, either.

  • Dennis

    Ok soon we have determined that Syria does have chemical weapons and is willing to use them would it not be prudent to demand that the regime surender these weapons before we attempt to destroy them. This would give evryone an out.

  • Elder Morris

    Perhaps a very narrow and targeted response would be to just use our drones to find and kill President Bashar al-Assad. That would deal with this issue and send a strong message to others who might consider the use of such weapons in the future.

    • it_disqus

      So we can assassinate anyone we want? Do you work for the CIA?

  • jaxthots

    Inquiring minds might want to know why we never heard this ringing rhetoric of condemnation during Israel’s mass murderous Cast Lead assault on Gaza in which white phosphorous (a hideous chemical weapon causing inextinguishable burning to the bone) and depleted uranium (releasing millions of radioactive particles into air, soil and water that generate cancers and cause horrible birth defects) were used against the entire population and over 300 children were killed, and Israel’s 2006 mass murderous assault on Lebanon when 1800 cluster bombs (1.2 million bomblets) were dropped on southern Lebanon during cease-fire negotiations, leaving tens of thousands of unexploded bomblets like land mines that precluded harvests that fall throughout the region.

    Inquiring minds might also want to know that the “Free Syrian Army” consists largely of outside mercenaries and Wahhabi/Salafi fanatics recruited from the wider region, supported by the Sunni Gulf States of Qatar and Saudi Arabia motivated to destroy the secular Syrian government, trained and supported by embedded US special operations teams, to which Russian intelligence attributes the chemical attacks as false flag operations to engage US intervention. This is the much more likely scenario since Assad is winning with conventional weapons and has no need to employ CW – a weapon of last resort – especially following the US “red line” threat. Dr. Assad is no fool and would be insane to conduct a CW attack immediately following and nearby the arrival of UN CW investigators, while the “rebels” would have everything to gain and nothing to lose by staging a false flag attack.

    Inquiring minds might also want to know that the legitimate Syrian opposition has already negotiated a new constitution with the Assad government that remedies most of their grievances, which was endorsed by 89% of the Syrian electorate last year, with elections scheduled for next year. The Syrian people deserve the right to test their new constitution and the Assad government’s willingness to abide by it, and practice their right of national self-determination under international law, without foreign interference. The US plan to dismember Syria began at least by 2008 with recruitment and training of Sunni fundamentalist terror squads and mercenaries from North Africa, the Middle East, Chechnya, and Europe, designated the “Free Syrian Army” in 2011 by US ambassador Robert Stephen Ford to replicate the “Salvador Option” of the Negroponte/Ford team in Iraq that launched the fratricidal chaos that continues to ruin that nation-no-more.

    While Israeli involvement is not clearly visible, it may be no coincidence that Israel adopted a long-term objective in 1982 to use sectarian fissures in Arab societies to reduce their nation-states into non-functional fragments following the Lebanon model (http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/articles/article0005345.html). Suspicion of Israeli influence is reinforced by the vigor with which the neocons are pushing to attack Syria (http://america-hijacked.com/2012/02/12/israel-lobby-pushes-for-us-action-against-the-syrian-government/), and reliance of the US administration on Israeli intelligence for its conclusion about Assad’s use of CW (http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-intelligence-seen-as-central-to-us-case-against-syria/).

  • Nurse from MN

    I find it interesting the three “experts” interviewed this afternoon, including a retired general I believe, strongly suggested that the president should have taken action already, that the Syrian Arab Military is breathing a sigh of relief, that yet again the president is slow to action…. Then when asked about the law and the difference in a norm, we learn that it would be against the law to take action and especially punitive action. It turns out the President must take all of this into consideration before taking action. Ultimately it is he who must suffer the consequences, not the “arm chair experts”.

  • it_disqus

    Liberals beating the drums of war is so comical: Splitting hairs on chemical weapons verse the term WMD, Justifying drone strikes in foreign countries like we rule the world and can kill at will, Willing to pull the trigger on war before the facts are all gathered by the UN investigators, Trying to sell the fact that the President has the right to start a war all on his own. We have no business in Syria and should stay out!

    • Matt

      I think those that aren’t absolutely against bombing Syrian sites are going more “what the hell? this is *actually* a violation of international law and if we don’t do something this will set up a terrible precedent for when other countries decide to use chemical weapons” I mean, hell, Obama was completely against doing anything in Syria until the chemical weapons attacks. Even the damn Congress was badgering him to get involved in Syria and he said no. Now we have a clear violation of international law and common humanity and everyone is suddenly silent?

      You think we’re damned if we get involved, what happens 10 years from now when we get attacked by pissed off Syrian survivors who begged for some help to stop the usage of chemical attacks and we did nothing?

      Do they have to use nukes before we care? Where do we draw the line at sheer destruction of a people before we decide to care? The US is the one in the position to prevent this because we’re the only ones left. We wanted to be the last remaining superpower in the world so it’s about time we start taking up the responsibility of the title

      • it_disqus

        Your comment is laughable. We are going to be attacked by some “pissed off Syrian survivors”?!?!?! You really don’t have a clue why those in the middle east hate us do you? It’s not because we have power and don’t use it, it is because we have power and do.

  • http://profiles.google.com/barry.kort Barry Kort

    The most powerful act any individual can perform is to bear accurate witness.

    John Kerry stood up to bear accurate witness as to what transpired in Syria.

    So far so good.

    Now what?

    Now the US — having observed Assad engaging in crimes against humanity — is obliged to act by taking the evidence to the International Court, there to indict and try Mr. Assad and his lieutenants on war crimes, under the aegis of the International Law.

    This is how the US, being a leader among civilized nations and a leader in the practice of the Rule of Law, demonstrates how a civilized nation operates in accordance with the Rule of Law, as it applies to international law governing war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    This is how a Nobel Peace Prize Winner demonstrates how state-sponsored violence is answered with non-violence, under the Rule of Law.

  • http://profiles.google.com/barry.kort Barry Kort

    Dale Gavlak, who frequently reports for NPR and the BBC, has bylined a story with a considerably different hypothesis than the one presented by Kerry.

    I hope NPR and or the BBC can quickly review Gavlak’s story and independently reckon its authenticity and reliability.

    Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack

Robin and Jeremy

Robin Young and Jeremy Hobson host Here & Now, a live two-hour production of NPR and WBUR Boston.

September 12 8 Comments

Senator: Arab Countries ‘Need To Step To The Plate’ In Fight Against ISIS

Mark Begich (D-AK) is one of the few members of Congress speaking out against a key part of President Obama's plan for fighting the Islamic State.

September 12 Comment

Ecuadorian Drilling Damage Inspires Documentary

An American and an Ecuadorian are inspired to help Ecuador heal from decades of drilling and oil spills.

September 11 9 Comments

Doctor: 9/11 Responders’ Illnesses Becoming Worse

A World Trade Center Health Program medical provider says chronic illnesses affecting first responders are lingering and becoming worse.

September 11 Comment

Dennis Lehane Takes ‘The Drop’ From Screen To Page

Author Dennis Lehane discusses adapting a screenplay into a novel.