FROM Gary Gambill
Syria’s Chemical Weapons and Obama’s “Red Line” Last week, Britain and France asked the UN to investigate evidence that Syria has used chemical weapons in its ongoing civil war. Yesterday, Israel’s top military intelligence analyst said photographs from attacks near Aleppo and Damascus show victims with constricted pupils foaming at the mouth—possible signs of the nerve agent sarin. He told an international conference in Jerusalem that, without “appropriate reaction,” Syria might conclude such use is “legitimate.” The Syrian government concedes it has chemical weapons but promises not to use them—unless there is foreign intervention. President Obama has said even moving such weapons around would be a “game changer” and constitute a “red line.” But just what did he mean? If there’s persuasive evidence, and the US fails to act, will Syria be emboldened by what seems a hollow warning? Available options include arming some rebels, establishing a “no-fly zone” and trying to seize or destroy the weapons. We’ll look at the prospects for increased US involvement.
Trump plays scolder-in-chief with NATO allies At the opening of NATO’s dramatic new headquarters in Brussels today, President Trump acknowledged that Article 5 — promising that “an attack on one nation is an attack on all” -- has only been invoked one time: in the aftermath of September 11. But the President failed to provide what 27 other Alliance members have been waiting for: a re-commitment by America’s new leader to Article 5. Instead, they got a scolding.
Terrorism and tweets, hate speech and murder Just days before an election, Britain is coping with a rash of deadly terrorism, and Prime Minister Theresa May is on the defensive. And again today, President Trump has tweeted criticism of the Mayor of London. Later, a double murder in Portland, Oregon has revealed the ugly past of a supposedly “progressive” city. One immediate question: is “hate speech” protected by the First Amendment?