Ooh, what a price I pay,
My foolish pride.
— Gary Moore
I am constantly surprised at the willingness of elected leaders to box themselves into corners by making ultimatums.
“Read my lips, the first George Bush said as a way of looking resolute on taxes — with the inevitable backtracking making look the part of the ineffectual president he was. Jim McGreevey did it when he signed a no-tax pledge while running for governor and then stuck to his pledge even as the state’s budget hole grew.
The effect of these foolish statements, however, did not result in the use of American war-making power oversees. That’s not the case with
President Obama’s own foolish pronouncements last year about Syrian chemical weapons.
“What I’m saying is we’re monitoring that situation very carefully,” Obama said in a surprise appearance in the White House briefing room.
But if the Assad regime were to use its weapons stockpiles, or alternatively, move it around, Obama suggested military action could be on the table.
“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,” the president said. “That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”
It appears fairly certain that the Assad regime has, in fact, used chemical weapons and the president’s words have left him with little room to maneuver.
Secretary of State John Kerry said today that Syria would be held to account for the “moral obscenity” of using weapons against its own people and that the White House “was moving closer to a military response.”
That, of course, is the red line talking. The red line is about credibility, we are told. It is about not looking weak, about putting our muscle where out mouth is. Put another way, the red line is about pride, and pride is one of the seven mortal sins — the root of all sins, in Christian theology.
Dante viewed pride as “love of self perverted to hatred and contempt for one’s neighbor,” and this seems to me a powerful description what we are witnessing with the red line debate over Syria. This may seem extreme, given the apparently altruistic motives, but the rhetoric here is relying on the language of punishment and power. This rhetorical focus comes not from charity, but from a pride that has
led us to see ourselves as the indispensable nation and the only one with the moral authority to meddle in others’ affairs. We claim it is about realpolitik and pragmatism, but it is not. It is pride expressed as a dangerous national self-regard — the same prideful nonsense that kept us in Vietnam for a decade, that kept us in Afghanistan and Iraq and that has consistently had us act in foolish and counterproductive ways on the world stage.
What we are watching are the beginnings of the next war — one the American people should not be happy about. And it is one that is likely to inflame an already volatile region. Assad is not the target, or maybe he is — that remains unclear as does what might be left in his wake were he removed from power. So we are looking at the military equivalent of a targeted drive-by — a message attached to the nose of a cruise missile. Add to this the uncertainty in Egypt, the continuing hostilities in Iraq and Lebanon and it is unclear to me what any of this can accomplish, aside from more death and destruction.
But we have drawn that red line and our credibility is at stake — at least that is what the military establishment and the Washington pundits are saying. And, you know, they are never wrong about these things.
Author: hankkalet
Hank Kalet is a poet and freelance journalist. He is the economic needs reporter for NJ Spotlight, teaches journalism at Rutgers University and writing at Middlesex County College and Brookdale Community College. He writes a semi-monthly column for the Progressive Populist. He is a lifelong fan of the New York Mets and New York Knicks, drinks too much coffee and attends as many Bruce Springsteen concerts as his meager finances will allow. He lives in South Brunswick with his wife Annie.
View all posts by hankkalet
Hank Kalet 
Enough, we should not be militarily involved in Syria. Soldiers are still dying in Afghanistan which we have occupied for almost 12 years. Gee, that was an unmitigated success (sarcasm alert). Talk about hubris and arrogance. Iraq was a disaster, we were lied into a massively unnecessary war, we don't need any more wars.
So…..you are okay with a regime killing its own people with chemical weapons….including women, children and the elderly….and you can sleep and at night knowing that?Talk about sins…..how can any human just watch that bloodbath and not be moved to act.This is about humanity….not pride, hubris, Iraq, Vietnam or anything else…..I believe we waited far too long and we let too many innocents die
@anonymous 11:15 AM: So….you are okay with a regime killing its own people in countries in Africa and Asia. I guess a war hawk like you wants to drop bombs on Iran, Somalia, Yemen and let's do Iraq all over again since it seems to be descending into violence and civil war. By all means we should give humanitarian aid to the Syrians who are suffering horrific deprivations. The jackasses wanted us to bomb Cuba, to drop A-bombs on China, thank God we didn't go down that lane. By the way, what is the US doing with its stores of chemical weapons?
There are many other actions we can take besides dropping bombs or putting troops on the ground in Syria: economic sanctions, working some deals with Russia and China to rein in their client state, Syria, or a blockade. We should definitely give humanitarian aid to the Syrians who have been displaced in other countries and who are in massive refugee camps. If US troops were not still being killed and maimed for life in Afghanistan then maybe I would be for military actions against the Assad regime.
I'll bet any money that the anonymous war hawk probably is against universal health care in the US, thinks that we should cut Social Security and Medicare and is vehemently against a living wage. But he's for dropping more bombs, he's for yet another military action in yet another third world country. Hey, while we're at it, let's bomb Iran, Sierra Leone, Russia and China. I thought we were all out of money for the needed social programs but we always seem to be able to find money for bombs and drones.
@ the anonymous war lover: Are you saying we should send troops into Syria and take down the Assad regime? Or are you saying that we should \”just\” use drone strikes and that we should \”just\” bomb Syria into submission? For how long? Months, years? We are involved militarily in so many countries across the world and now they want to add Syria to this long list. Iran is next, this idiocy never ends with the war lovers.
Rush Holt has a good take on the Syria crisis: \”The world must respond to these atrocities in Syria with a full understanding of the facts and with the full involvement of the international community and the United States Congress. In particular, we must reject the foolish idea that America should take military action before there is good international understanding of the facts. We remember the errors of Iraq. America should be the exemplar of good international behavior. We cannot be the unilateral enforcer of good behavior.Together with 115 members of Congress – including 98 Republicans and 17 Democrats – I wrote President Obama this week to urge him to seek Congressional authorization prior to the use of military force in Syria. Our constitution obliges him to do so, and Congress stands ready to convene at his request to weigh the wisdom of any such military strike.\”