[September 10, 2017] On August 20, 2012, U.S. President Barack Obama used the phrase “red line” in the context of warning Syrian President Assad that the use of chemical weapons was a point at which the United States would take firm action against that country. A relatively new term –but old concept –the idea of red lines means a figurative point of no return, if crossed safety can no longer be guaranteed.
“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground [in the Syrian War], that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.” – U.S. President Barack Obama
As old as diplomacy and as common as war between nations, senior leaders who communicate their nation’s intent and interests often use red lines to give warning to those who are the enemy. An enemy (or competitor) who chooses to cross that line should understand that action will be taken to punish a particular behavior.
During my early days in the U.S. Army we used the phrase “line in the sand,” metaphorically drawn with the idea it should not be crossed without severe consequences. Of course, leaders who issue any red line (or draw a line in the sand) should do so only after careful calculations are made that the threat can, in fact, be carried out and effective in application. Otherwise one’s leadership credibility is lost.
For example, in the news lately has been the Israeli military which issued a strong message about the production, storage, and weaponization of chemical weapons in the Middle East. Earlier this week, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) attacked a facility in Masyaf Syria that was a Syrian chemical weapons and missile factory. Former Israeli General Amos Yadlin said the attack sends an important message to the world about Israeli’s intent to enforce certain red lines when it comes to protecting itself.1
When red lines are established there are two components that should always be part of the message. First, clarity on what the specific red line actually is. And second, the specific punishment that will be taken to penalize anyone crossing that red line. General Yadlin said the attack sends three important messages.
That Israel won’t allow for the production of strategic arms, that Israel will enforce its red lines despite the fact that the great powers are ignoring them, and that the presence of Russian air defense does not prevent airstrikes attributed to Israel. That is very clear and a good example of establishing a red line and carrying out a punishment.
President Obama’s statement failed to achieve either of the two requirements for a red line. It looked as if it was a clear statement that if Syria used chemical weapons, the U.S. would attack, but it was not. In fact, Obama later denied he ever set a red line and the U.S. took no action after Syria conducted several chemical attacks.
Past president Obama, in this instance, provides us with an example of how senior leadership should not be conducted and is a lesson to us all.
[Don’t forget to “Like” the Leader Maker at our Facebook Page.]
——————-