One knows one has hit a new low when one uses titles of a tabloid nature, one can't be taken as seriously when one prints such a headline, but alas I had to to get across a point that I find to be a cynical one. Among my many unpublished screeds is my rather lame attempt at trying to create a cynical piece of political humour. A satirized plea if you will that insisted that Saddam Hussein's Iraq did have Weapons of Mass Destruction after all, they had only been moved to next door Syria. I therefore jokingly added that a responsible POTUS must preemptively invade Syria and any other non-aligned state in the vicinity in order to find these weapons in order to be on the safe side.
One doesn't find oneself tittering at that absurd prospect now, this lame attempt at humour has morphed before our eyes into a serious policy option under discussion within the Obama Administration, Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons is now becoming a major part of the debate on whether or not the United States should militarily intervene.
Obama declared any Syrian use of chemical weapons to be a “red line” even though the Assad regime is insisting it will not use its chemical weapons unless they are attacked by foreign powers (it is also being repeatedly stated by the administration that all options are still on the table with regard to Syria). It is also interesting to note that these comments made by Obama come around the same time that he praised George W. Bush as a man of faith. Rather pretentiously stating that he doubts Bush would not have been noble enough to introduction immigration reform and help put in place relief missions to combat the spread of AIDs in Africa.
Such patronization and rhetoric seem to be the keystone of the Obama campaign, he is a hawk with regard to foreign policy masquerading as a dove. He has self-evidently broken a great deal of his '08 campaign promises (his promise for 'change' being the most salient) and is now setting a precedent to go to war with Syria. One aptly recalls the distinction Hilary Clinton put forth when deciding to intervene in Libya and not Syria, in essence Gaddafi was more of a tyrant than Assad since he was at the time bombing his own people whilst Assad's forces were merely shooting their own people.
Now that Assad is in fact bombing people and keeping his chemical warfare shells in storage Syria is suddenly taking prime stage. No sane person wants to see more Syrians getting killed in the crossfire in this heinously savage civil war, however a sane and sober minded individual should see that the manner in which the United States is permitting its gulf allies -- Saudi Arabia and Qatar -- to directly arm the Syrian opposition through its NATO ally Turkey constitutes aggression against Syria. This kind of policy is adding to the violence in the country, not aiding in an alleviation of the bloodshed.
Such a policy prohibits the Obama Administration from acting as an honest arbiter between the two warring sides in order to bring about a tenable ceasefire, instead the policy seems to be one of arming the opposition in their violent goal of bringing about regime change. In turn Assad is left with two realistic options, lay down his arms and be overthrown -- and quite likely be killed -- or fight to stay in power. He has obviously chosen the latter and has as his staunch support base the Alawaii minority who are fearful of sectarian attacks on their communities by Sunni extremists.
This is a seriously dangerous state of foreign affairs, and it comes from an administration whose president had only some two years ago reached out a hand and promised to be more creative and constructive when dealing with Middle Eastern countries. Instead, sadly one sees that as much as things appear to change, the more they evidently stay the same.