Obama could have grounded the Syrian air force through pinpoint targeting, including by cratering runways, without large loss of life or collateral damage. The president could have shown that he understood very well the unique and moral role of the United States in international affairs. Against such American leadership, Syria could not have carried on its relentless air campaign, and Russia when deciding on its options would have been faced with a pre-emptive American move. U.S. policymakers could have then invited Russia to join Washington in seeking an end to the war, thereby maintaining a position of strength sufficient to convert the Syrian strike into an international effort to reach a settlement. (…)
Would the consequences have been different if the United States had taken military action in August 2013? Could the decision three years ago have actually magnified harm to American interests today? Might the United States and Turkey have found more common ground? Leadership is not only about deciding what is specifically best for you; it’s also about visualizing the result and using all the tools available to push in that direction with friends and opponents. Events over the last three years may offer us a cautionary tale on the consequences of what happens after nothing happens. ‚Ex nihilo nihil fit‘ [“Aus dem Nichts entsteht nichts] does not hold true in international affairs.“
(W. Robert Pearson, ehemaliger US-Botschafter in der Türkei, zur Frage, was in Syrien geschehen wäre, wenn die Obama-Administration sich an die von ihre selbst gezogenen „roten Linien“ zu Einsatz von chemischen Waffen gehalten hätten: „The Syria ‚What If‘ That May Haunt Obama“.)
