WI Obama's "Red Line" wasn't ignored

A major criticism of Obama is for making the Red Line comment about Assad's use of chemical weapons, then promptly ignoring it. What happens if he felt he couldn't ignore it, and had to act in some capacity whether a bombing campaign or a full blown NATO intervention (if possible).

What would be the outcome?

If I recall correctly, he did have some support from France, although the UK and other allies were a bit more wishy washy. What could he have done?
 
The thing is it would have been a weak punitive strike which would have had nearly a fortnight of pre-warning. At the end of the day the President would fire a couple missiles at a couple of already abandoned military sites and get on TV and brag about how America "doesn't let children get gassed, etc." There would be outrage as he ignored Congress (which was set to reject the motion he was proposing). After more Syrians get gassed a few weeks later, people would scream bloody murder at how "weak" he was in the crisis. Then the media would promptly move on to another news story, and the American people would be stated with having "done something."
Ultimately, Assad's position in power would never be seriously challenged and he would actually be strengthened domestically, for "going toe to toe, with American and 'winning,'" similar to how Qaddafi weathered Reagan's punitive strike in 1986.
:(
 
This would mean the difference between the project to overthrow the Syrian government through more subtle means (ongoing since the late Bush administration), and a more open intervention that would probably look like Libya a few years earlier.

So, just take a look at Libya. There would be a collapse of state authority, women's rights would be severely curtailed, there would be (even more than have already happened) massacres of minority religious and ethnic groups, and groups like IS would operate pretty openly.

Regionally, the Saudis, Israelis, and Turks would have a freer hand since one of their prime antagonists has been removed. The Iraqi and Lebanese governments would probably have to deal with a surge of IS/Al-Qaeda affiliated groups that would relocate from Syria like similar groups did from Libya following that civil war.

Internationally, since the Russian and Chinese votes on the Security Council would be ignored by an overt US attack on Syria (having actively voted against something like that, rather than merely abstaining as in the Libyan case), I imagine that relations between those countries and the west (supposing that at least a few European countries supported US action, probably the UK and France) would be correspondingly colder. A Syrian intervention in Syria would not take place with the support of the UN, but would be more likely to be a NATO run operation or another 2003-era "Coalition of the Willing".
 
When did Assad use Chem weapons? IIRC the FSA was the only ones having used them. Could someone clarify this?
 
When did Assad use Chem weapons? IIRC the FSA was the only ones having used them. Could someone clarify this?

I believe that this is the case but since the question isn't so much over chemical weapons use and more to do with "what would happen if a US intervention in Syria took place" I figured that the justification was really not that important.
 
Turkey would be very willing to help the US go after Assad, that might make things worse for the Kurds.
 
Top