Facing the Red Line

At 2:00 PM EST today, Secretary of State John Kerry issued a harsh reprimand of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons on rebel opposition forces and civilians. This statement came in the wake of an attack on a Damascus suburb on Wednesday, August 21st that left hundreds with symptoms of neuro-toxic poisoning.

A proper response to the ongoing violence in Syria has been long overdue. Last August, President Obama warned the Syrian government that the use of chemical weapons would be considered the crossing of a "red line" that would prompt action from the United States. Despite the President's warning, several suspected chemical weapons attacks have taken place in Syria over the past year, none of which elicited a response from the U.S. government.

The military quagmires of both Iraq and Afghanistan have taught the President the value of caution in foreign military involvement, specifically when it comes to the gravity of placing "boots on the ground". Yet while taking a tread-lightly approach to the situation is necessary, Obama must also deal with the growing perception that America's international moral credibility is waning, and is being further hurt by the military's inaction in Syria.

Strategically, the conflict in Syria provides the United States with a plethora of additional complexities to the already tangled web of politics that affects Middle Eastern-American relations. First and foremost is Syria's relationship with Iran, which, for the past decade and a half, has been one of America's main antagonists in the region. On Sunday, Massoud Jazayeri, deputy chief of staff of Iran's armed forces, warned the United States that military intervention in Syria would have serious repercussions. 

In addition to international political complications, there is also heavy influence by Islamic extremists amongst the ranks of the Syrian rebels. One rebel group, the Al Nusra Front, is reported to have close ties with Al Qaeda. It is suspected that those rebel factions aided by Al Qaeda have the capacity to produce and deploy chemical weapons.

All in all, this situation is a mess. It seems unclear who the United States should be supporting, what means we should support them with, and to what end those means are to be used. Politics aside, thousands and thousands of innocent people are being slaughtered and displaced in a conflict that many do not wish to take part in. 

I have included a recent BBC Documentary that does a phenomenal job of providing some context to what is going on in Syria. The film, direct by Robin Barnwell and hosted by Dan Snow, illustrates how the country's recent history can shed a great deal of light on its current struggle. I strongly suggest watching it so you can have a basis for why the country is in its abysmal state.

Documentary BBC - A History of Syria (2013)

Return of the Maverick

In recent days the Obama administration has gained an unexpected ally in the push for immigration reform: his 2008 electoral opponent John McCain. The senator, along with his new political ally Democrat Chuck Schumer, returned from a meeting at the White House with a apparent sense of optimism, something rarely seen in Washington these days. Commenting on the meeting, McCain made it clear that a path to citizenship was a key component to solving the country's inescapable immigration challenge.

This act of bipartisanship comes at a time when Senate Republican leadership is becoming factionalized. While Senator Mitch McConnell still holds sway over many of the chamber's Republicans, McCain and his group of supporters, which includes Sens. Lindsay Graham and Lamar Alexander, are seeking an alternative to the Minority Leader's opposition based way of legislating. McConnell, wary of his looming reelection campaign in 2014, is unlikely to follow McCain's lead and adopt a more bipartisan position.

As McCain inches closer to his former position as Upper Chamber magnate, it is very possible that an increased number of bipartisan deals will be reached on the Senate floor in the coming months. The Senator has the optimum number of colleagues behind him to block filibusters that would prevent him from building his immigration legacy and is showing no signs of putting a stop to the brand of deal making that he become known for.

The Zimmerman Trial and the Ensuing Media Circus

Within minutes of George Zimmerman being declared not guilty, various social media sites were splattered with the opinions of both those who supported and opposed the verdict. Virtually every possible issue that could be connected to the shooting and trial were explored, most prominently gun ownership, problems with the Florida legal system, and racial inequality. Very quickly, it became clear that, in regards to the trial's outcome, people were split down very obvious partisan lines: Liberals tended to dispute the verdict while conservatives were often in favor of it, and each group used the event to support their political agenda. However, the vast majority of comments coming from both sides seem ill-informed and downright disrespectful, all of which was fueled by a media frenzy that surrounded the event.

Drama makes good television. That is just a fact, and it applies to the news as much as it does any other television format. However, the goal of journalistic television is not to entertain (though that seems to have been forgotten in the last decade or two), it is to inform. A murder trial certainly makes for good television, but is debatable whether or not the trial of George Zimmerman is at all relevant to the vast majority of American citizens.

One key argument for all the support being paid to the this trial and the events that surround it are a perfect allegory for the state of racism in the United States. While racial inequality is an abhorrent reality of this nation, this notion that the shooting of Trayvon Martin was racially motivated comes off as manufactured and misplaced. From NBC's editing of Zimmerman's recorded police call to Benjamin Jealous comparing Martin's death to the murder of Emmett Till, various groups and media outlets have trying to force a heavy racial undertone to the trial. This drive to editorialize the event, coupled with a common disregard with information surrounding the actual trial, seems to be leading many to hefty generalizations about the implications of the verdict.

The politicization of the killing of a teenage boy and the ensuing trial is nothing short of a failure by the fourth estate to do their job. Criminal trials are rarely relevant on a national scale and pornographic exploitation of those involved is a misuse of the tools that could be used to educate the American people and spark a serious dialogue about issues of race.

Senatus ad Opus

The Senate's recent burst of activity as a functioning body of government has come as a shock to those who have come to know the upper chamber as a legislative minefield, where few bills get passed and those that do are rather mangled upon exit. A recent Politico article highlights the seemingly overnight 180 that the Senate has undergone in regards to passing new legislature, specifically with immigration reform.

While it is nice to see this group of one hundred elected officials finally doing their job, the amount of praise they should be rewarded for such action should be minute at the most. Election politics are obviously an important factor in deciding whether or not to vote for a bill, but when it is the primary force behind such a decision, it is detrimental to the process and the people.

The fact that super-majorities are almost ubiquitously needed to pass any new laws is a clear signal that the chamber's rules need changing. There is something quasi noble, albeit annoying, about a legislator standing and speaking for hours on end to prevent a vote, but when the mere threat of this action requires sixty senators just to render their threat void, the chamber finds itself at the mercy of the minority. That is not how democracy works.

Elected officials should have one priority: serving the people who elected them. Political squabble should take a backseat when important issues such as student loans and immigration are being debated and voted on, and the Senate seems like it is just beginning to understand this. If only the House can follow suit...

U.S. Arming Syrian Rebels

Last Thursday, President Obama made a long awaited decision to intervene in the civil war that has been taking place in Syria over the past two years. It was confirmed that the United States will provide arms to the rebel forces battling the Syrian Government led by President Bashar al-Assad. Although the administration claimed that it was because of the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons, it is more likely that the decision was driven by a desire to prevent the violence from seeping into surrounding countries. Some politicians, however, chastised the President for not acting quickly enough.

History could help explain why Obama has waited a significant amount of time to take a proactive stance in the conflict that has claimed the lives of more than 90,000 people. First and most obvious, the recent foreign policy quagmires of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars should give the administration a great deal of reason to wander cautiously in regards to intervention in the Middle East. Likewise, last time the United States was faced with a similar opportunity to arm rebels in such a fashion was Operation Cyclone in the 1980s, in which the U.S. Government provided arms and financial aid to the Afghan Mujahideen. While this did help Afghanistan to throw off oppressive Soviet rule, it inadvertently allowed for the later consolidation of Al-Qaeda power.

President Obama is right to help the Syrian people fight for their freedom from a destructive despot, but a degree of wariness is necessary when dealing with such a volatile situation. The extremist groups present on both sides echo an atmosphere similar to the one in Afghanistan that was present thirty years ago.