It is a fact that where the USA goes the UK will follow. The US have declared PRISM whistleblower Edward Snowden public enemy number one and the UK has followed suit identifying him as persona non grata in the UK.
More worrying for Brits though is William Hague's, expected, announcement following a US decision Thursday with regards to Syria. The Obama administration now claim that they have conclusive evidence the regime of Bashar al Assad in Syria used chemical weapons during the country's civil war. The accusation is that the weapons were used on Syrian citizens and that in doing so a red-line has been crossed. That means "direct military support" will be supplied to the rebels by the west.
Surprise surprise Friday William Hague agreed and added the UK's weight behind whatever will follow next.
As yet it is not clear what the military aid to the rebels, now called the SNC, Syrian National Council will be. Will it take the form of boots on the ground, money or sophisticated weapons such as drones? Sceptics will say that there are already boots on the grounds fighting against Assad.
It is convenient timing of course for the Obama administration. Declaring that they have conclusive evidence of chemical weapon use in Syria could point to the usefulness of US snooping around the world. It could also take the heat away from breaches of freedoms in the USA, all committed in the name of preventing terrorism. Whilst you may think this sounds far-fetched many an ailing government has been saved in the popularity stakes by participating in a successful conflict.
One side of the coin:
As cuts to the UK military bite it is hard to anticipate how deeply the UK will become involved in Syria. In the past following the US into conflict has left Britain financially and militarily depleted and almost holding-the-baby. Few in the UK have the stomach for more costly and damaging foreign interference.
We should not forget that the UK runs the risk of alienating many citizens abroad by its actions and sometimes by its inaction.
The humanitarian crisis is being bandied about as a reason to intervene in Syria but there are many other countries with equally damaging situations playing out. Our intervention will be about our political goals and ambitions, not about truly helping the people of Syria. It will be about looking after western interests in the region and more. Once again we also have to accept that there is big money in the weapons industry, especially in America.
Whilst Syria needs action, whether foreign military action is the answer is unclear. A no-fly zone over Syria has been mentioned today which would obviously need a great deal of foreign support. Initially however it would only operate over rebel training camps. The US administration has said it will make changes to decisions in its own timeline, whilst keeping the international community in-the-loop.
It is for you dear reader to decide if foreign intervention in Syria is necessary, long-overdue, subterfuge or more about America's global power.
The other side of the coin:
Early Friday evening update:
The BBC reports that UK PM David Cameron has said no decision on whether to arm the Syrian rebels or not has been taken by the British government. He reaffirmed his support of the US position and will speak with American President Obama by phone, ahead of the up coming G8 summit in Northern Ireland.