Barack obama

Boris Johnson makes a strong case in today’s Telegraph that even if the west wanted to intervene in the Syrian civil war the point at which is was plausible to do so has long since passed. The benefits of intervention no longer outweigh the risks. Meanwhile, Paul Goodman reiterates that there’s no obvious British national interest in intervening. It is difficult to disagree with either analysis. Across the Atlantic, meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan is appalled by the Obama administration’s decision to offer a modest quantity of modest weaponry to the Syrian opposition. This isn’t just unwise; it’s close to insane, he suggests. Don’t be fooled into thinking this will shorten the conflict or save lives,

What is a red line, exactly? We’ve been hearing a lot of talk about ‘red lines’ from our politicians in recent weeks in relation to Syria, chemical weapons, and western intervention. ‘Red Line’ has become a sort of post-Iraq diplomatic catchphrase. It translates, roughly, as  the ‘point at which we, the West, will definitely — and we really mean it — intervene, so take us seriously, ok?’ But where has it come from? Is it connected to ‘redline’, the mechanical word for the maximum engine speed at which an internal combustion engine can operate without overheating? Is it to do with the red laser lines that alarm systems use? The thin red

‘Drones save lives’ is the title of my piece in this morning’s Wall Street Journal. President Obama is currently receiving criticism from left and right for his policy of targeted assassination by unmanned drones. I think among a range of bad options drones are the least bad option for dealing with the threat, and explain this further in the piece which is available here. Along the same lines readers might be interested in a debate I did last week on the same subject for Google and Intelligence Squared. The motion was ‘America’s drone campaign is both moral and effective’. I was lucky in having David Aaronovitch on my side. The

I see that Con Coughlin is at it again. Apparently, you see, Barack Obama has “taken leave of reality”. How so? By declaring that al-Qaeda is but “a shadow of its former self”. That seems a reasonable statement to me. Moreover, the sensible response to that declaration is surely I should bloody well hope so. Otherwise what have we – that is, chiefly, the US Armed Forces – been doing these past dozen years? According to Con, however, the President is, at best, hopelessly naive and, more probably, abdicating from his responsibilities. You see: Is he forgetting that it is only five months since Chris Stevens, the US ambassador to Libya, died following an

Con Coughlin suggests Barack Obama has “given up” fighting al-Qaeda which, frankly, is a curious assessment given the ongoing drone war (and other operations) in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Roger Kimball, however, makes Coughlin look like a piker since, according to Kimball, Obama’s inauguration speech yesterday contained shades of Neville Chamberlain. Yes, really. These may be extreme reactions but there is evidently a widespread sense that Obama is some form of “neo-isolationist” hellbent on retreating from a big, bad and dangerous world so he may instead concentrate upon our old chum “nation-building at home”. If by this you mean Obama is unlikely, as matters presently stand, to send 250,000 American troops