Red Line Mea Culpa

Having been formerly — one might say way back — a white officer in a black outfit, I have since been keenly interested in the black experience in America. I was thrilled to see the first black president of the United States, someone so cool, so intelligent, and so exemplary a family man.

When Barack Obama pulled away from intervening militarily in Syria, I supported his action. After all, wasn't it his mission to get the United States out of its fateful habit of intervening militarily abroad?

I thought it was astute of President Obama to get us out of his "red line" commitment to attack Syria if the Assad Government persisted in the use of chemical weapons. (It turns out that this was a commitment that was the original sin of the whole affair— there is such a thing as being too straight.)

I thought it was astute of President Obama in following David Cameron's example of putting the decision to move ahead militarily into the hands of the legislators.

Now, much later, the picture looks different. The U.S. has largely lost a role in Syria. In the first place, following Britain's example was a miscalculation. Our two countries are simply not on the same plane of importance.

But more importantly, if the U.S. had taken charge of the skies over Syria at that time, it would have made it more difficult for Vladimir Putin to throw his air force into the mix later on and thereby outwit his American counterpart. However one may criticize Donald Trump for playing up to Putin, the Russian leader has shown himself to be a formidable tactician.

Unfortunately, the "red line" incident will go down as the singular blunder in an otherwise successful Obama presidency.