t’s been two years since the start of the bloody civil war in Syria.

Despite regular reports of destruction and human loss, Barack Obama and western allies have been tentative to act.

Could chemical warfare, then, be the final tipping point for the U.S.?

Possible evidence of a chemical weapons attack by Syrian army forces north of Aleppo. Courtesy of Reuters. 

Obama hinted as much when discussing intelligence suggesting that the Assad regime has been using chemical agents against Syrian civilians and rebel fighters. Obama was quoted as saying that there remained uncertainty as to whether or not the “red line” had been crossed.

 So… the US is still tentative to act.

 Secretary of State Chuck Hagel alluded to “varying degrees of confidence” within the Pentagon, at best, that Assad had deployed chemical weapons against his own people.

Weapons experts from the U.N., meanwhile, won’t be much use. They would need to access alleged sites to test soil, blood, and tissue samples—a daunting prospect to say the least, seeing as Assad has all but shut his country off to the U.N.             

 And while the wait for concrete evidence continues, more people in Syria will continue to die or be displaced with each passing day.

While we wait for actionable evidence to be confirmed and new decisions made, the human cost mounts.

Which brings us to another question: with all that has transpired already, why should chemical weapons be the red line?

Shouldn’t the tens of thousands already dead be sufficient  for western intervention? And if not, why?