Pacificism or the red line - it's a very fine line in an increasingly complicated world!

It was hardly a struggle to find a subject of relevance to discuss this week, what with the crisis in Syria deepening and the congregation of military might that has been arriving in the Mediterranean Sea over the last weeks. Things have surely and sorely come to a head and the question now is clear: what is Barack Obama (and the rest of the world) going to do about it?

Obama called for an end to Assad's dictatorship back during the "Arab Spring" of 2011, though there was little done to follow through on that demand, but it probably solidified Assad's resolve to not let America further dictate it's own agenda to countries it has no business meddling in - Assad had seen the result of that meddling, as we all have. So Assad and his regime dug their heels in deep against the rebels and fully engaged the civil war that continues on over two years later.

The President himself did not retain full support for his stand on Syria when he made public his sentiment that the use of any chemical weapons in Syria would be a "red line" - the reason that this created a problem is that it essentially implies that one is forced to take action when that red line has been crossed - unless one is prepared to lose credibility and come off as a blowhard and yet inherently weak. He tied his own hands with his red line speech.

You know? I think the world, and certainly the youth of the world, might still today have a very different take on this man than what became his reality, and/or is now more evident after more than four years in power. It is quite poignant to this writer that a man who was given a Nobel Peace Prize (for essentially having achieved nothing at that time) is the President who has also ordered more drone kill strikes from remote control posts than even his predecessor, George Bush.

For someone who was seen as a pacifist, and who got elected in essence to end two wars, he has quietly expanded Bush's drone program and killed more of the "evil-doers" in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen than ol' George and all the other presidents combined. And for the record, he has gone on the record to state that he is not against war, per se, only "dumb wars". He mustn't have seen Afghanistan as a dumb war because he did send out an additional 33,000 troops as part of "the surge" in 2010, of which many at home did not approve. 

It can't have been easy for someone who ran on and was viewed as being a pacifist, but who entered power in a situation involving two major ongoing wars and a less geographically defined "global war" against terror. I think everyone thought that both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would be mere history shortly after his tenure began, but that was hardly the case. Just as he promised to close "Gitmo" as an election promise, yet to this day the naval base at Guantanamo Bay is fully operational and still houses close to 200 prisoners. 

A supposed pacifist became a reluctant wartime president who has run into trouble even on home soil for the sheer volume of executions-by-drone that he has ordered in countries over which the US has no legal authority. Now, given his "red line", we are faced with the US launching missiles into yet another country in the middle east, the full consequences of which are hard to predict in such an unstable part of the world in such times of global instability. 

Putin has made it clear he does not approve of military strikes and there are Russian ships in the vicinity, including some recent new deployments to the region which are hardly coincidental, as the Russians have implied. Interestingly, the fiercely loyal David Cameron of the UK has been forced to pull out of supporting the move and this strengthens Putin's warnings to the US that it must not take military action against Assad and Syria. 

But what to do? With over 100,000 people killed since the civil war began, and apparently increasing evidence that chemical weapons have been used, and the UN inspectors now safely out of harm's way, Obama feels forced to act. Quite how much of his desire to act comes purely out of concern for those on the ground, or, as a way to rekindle support during the latter years of his rather miscalculated presidential term and leave a stronger legacy, well, I will leave that one to the history books! But overall it is probably wise to give him the benefit of the doubt. 

Perhaps the most telling thoughts come from the man himself:

"I respect the views of those who call for caution, particularly as our country emerges from a time of war that I was elected in part to end. But if we really do want to turn away from taking appropriate action in the face of such an unspeakable outrage, then we must acknowledge the costs of doing nothing," he said recently in reference to his decision. 

I tend to agree with him regarding his comments that basically we all think something should be done but we all also enjoy the luxury of not having to be the one who rubber stamps it or actually does it. 

"Frankly, you know, part of the challenge that we end up with here is that a lot of people think something should be done, but nobody wants to do it.",  Obama said on Friday.

Ironically, the consequences in the middle east might be manageable given that various Arab countries are also outraged at the use of chemical weapons, but it might be further north in Russia where things could get very shaky. Putin is a loose cannon who stands behind Syria, and we all know he likes to get under Obama's skin when he can. But surely not even he is stupid enough to escalate this into something more, and return us to, at best, a new cold war, or by far at worst, some totally pointless version of WWIII. 

In any case, and considering that the UK has pulled its support, Obama asked Congress to weigh in on and back his decision to hit Syria with Tomahawk cruise missiles that can hit a target with an accuracy of fifteen feet or less when fired from open waters. By asking for complicity, this move ultimately should reflect the will of the American people, and not just its administration.

Given what occurred in Syria, it is an extremely delicate and tough decision to make; one that only the President himself can sanction when it comes right down to it. I don't envy him that decision, but then again, that's why he gets paid the big bucks and gets all the fame and glory that he enjoys so much. 

My big decision now is whether to get my butler to bring me another pot of Demonic Dark Roast, sourced in deepest Brazil, or whether the morning is sufficiently developed to allow one to partake of a stiff bloody mary with fresh ground mixed pepper grains and an extra splash of hot sauce! ;) - Kevin Mc