While everyone debates exactly which way to dive into the mire that is action in Syria, one phrase has come to define international discussion: “red line.” Though he in no way patented the phrase, it was brought into consideration in the Syrian debate in an August 2012 speech by President Barack Obama (and, interestingly, in the 2012 presidential debates). Since then, every report, from harsh criticism of US alleged plans to intervene and/or the country’s relative inaction in recent times to speeches from strike supporters, has listed or mocked the “red line” wording used by the president. The heart of the matter, though, is an entirely different story. As it turns out, red lines exist everywhere, everyone interprets them differently, and nobody actually has the power to assert what the lines mean in reality.

By August of 2012, the Syrian army had, for the first time, faced what could be called an organized resistance in Syria. As a result, the conflict, which until then seemed to be too unclear to judge, became a “civil war.” Of course, this immediately called into question international intervention. As the at times self-appointed, and otherwise chosen, military force and/or bully in the world, the United States response served as an early indicator of action to be taken. President Obama gave a statement on the issue that month. In his response, President Obama said

“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. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”

Of note are two words: “calculus” and “equation.” Removing supposition and interpretation, the remark itself never suggests that the United States, nor even the international community, has a firm "red line" position on chemical weapons use. In fact, the United States knew about and at times supported the use of tear and mustard gas, as well as 2013’s resurgent sarin, in 1983 Iraq. Instead, the terms at play, the “math” of the situation, was the crux of the argument: things would have to be reconsidered, to some angle, when evidence of that level of warfare was found. International law, after all, is as flexible as they come.

Fast forward to exactly one year later: Syria is a hotbed of factional warfare, bringing the Syrian Army, rebel groups, jihadists, and a plethora of ideologies into the conflict. Thrown into the mix are chemical weapons, with the source still contested, and the “red line” is crossed. This, of course, sparks a crisis itself: what did President Obama say? That depends entirely on the reading of that comment in August 2012, a remark that probably haunts dreams in the White House every night.

The range of reactions was relatively narrow, but the common denominator was “red line.” Those critical of the president reacted by making light of the ever-shifting red line, a “recalculation” that each time allowed for more abuses. On the other side were those who interpreted the quotation as stated, that a “red line” existed only as a variable, not a hard standard.

Responses of note include former governor Sarah Palin,

“Bottom line is that this is about President Obama saving political face because of his “red line” promise regarding chemical weapons.”

the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,

“Now, some have tried to suggest that the debate we're having today is about President Obama's red line. I could not more forcefully state that is just plain and simply wrong. This debate is about the world's red line. It's about humanity's red line. And it's a red line that anyone with a conscience ought to draw.”

a quip from Lebanon’s Al-Manar TV

“Before we talk about this and about the Geneva conference and the red lines that Syria has drawn…”

and even a jab by Bashar al-Assad

If you want to talk red lines, the United States used depleted uranium in Iraq, Israel used white phosphorous in Gaza. And nobody said anything. We don’t see red lines. It’s political red lines.

Even into 2013's G-20 summit, remarks by John McCain, Ben Rhodes, and even the president have filled the echo chamber with "red lines."

The lines, to quote Robin Thicke, are indeed “blurred.” It all depends on the agenda, not the reality nor the solutions. Regardless, the sheer volume of ineffective, gear-turning argument over the phrasing used by the President a full year before the crisis reached a chemical phase is as absurd in practice as reopening the Clinton-era impeachment debates: we all know the realities and the actual “lines” of international conflict and have, realistically, a set range of actions to execute. For some, like Canada, this is an intense focus on humanitarian aid. For Russia, this is found in playing out latent Cold War scenarios and defending a warm water port through external negotiations with Syria. For this United States, the fate is worse: the country has become responsible for everything. Inaction is a failure, any response can and will be deemed incorrect or ineffective by X political group, and military force will be humored, but categorically opposed by foreign allies and “adversaries.” And sitting firmly in the middle of all of this is a tiny little red line, drawn so far out of context and reality that few can even name its source anymore.

Perhaps focusing not on the wording of a single statement, especially to the sheer level of bizarre revelry seen in the Senate committee, can shift us, the globalized collective, toward working actions. For now, those “red lines” are painted in a box around Syria by the countries and actors tasked with protecting peace, a reminder of how ego, power, and economics can fundamentally, and inexcusably, blind the strongest.