The World's Red Line?
I've been critical of any proposed intervention in Syria because it seems like another quagmire in the making. A large proportion of the American people are against such action and UN officials have warned that military action would be illegal without some sort of Security Council consent. Russia and China have objected to military action in the strongest possible terms. American intelligence officials have laid out a case that Bashar al-Assad's forces used chemical weapons to slaughter 1,400 civilians, but, of course, the government often lies when that suits someone's agenda.
Even if you accept the government's version of events, the question of whether or not we can actually make any sort of strike that would impact Syria's chemical weapons stockpile is a valid concern. After all, the Syrians would know they only face a "limited" attack and could always move their chemical weapons stockpiles close to schools and hospitals. On the surface, the case to stay out of it seems strong. And yet . . . and yet . . .
Just as there are a large number of people opposed to intervening in Syria, there were a large number of people who supported the invasion of Iraq. And clearly, with Iraq, the American people got it wrong. It's true that most of us are weary of war, but it's also true that people tend to react emotionally. Is it possible the American people are getting it wrong now? Is it possible that because of the bad taste left in all our mouths by the way the Iraq war was handled, we're now overreacting in the other direction? Possibly.
If the US government's accusations are to be believed, we are not talking about hypothetical weapons of mass destruction supported by drawings and other flimsy evidence. Rather, we are talking about the use of such weapons on what seems to be a fairly large scale. Now some of you might remember that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds back in the 1980's and the world didn't respond in any meaningful way. If the world reaction had been different to that attack, might Bashar al-Assad have thought twice about using chemical weapons? Perhaps.
Preventing the use of chemical or biological weapons -- especially against civilians -- is not only an American security concern, but a real concern for the rest of the world as well. During the entire course of the Syrian civil war, Bashar al-Assad has shown himself to be a thug and a murderer and if his use of chemical weapons goes unchallenged, what then?
I think a couple of thing are clear. One is that the Bush Regime lying to the world about Iraqi weapons stockpiles is coming back to bite us. The conventions against the use of chemical weapons are international in scale; thus, they require an international response. But the world remembers Iraq and so other countries are reluctant to just accept American analysis of the situation -- even if American analysis really is the best information available.
The other is that a resolution passed by the US Senate based on evidence presented by American intelligence is not an international process, nor is it a process that the rest of the world has reason to have faith in. President Obama has repeatedly said that chemical weapons are not his red line, but the world's red line. If that's true, then it must be the international community that acts. The United States should not be acting alone and if any military action occurs, it needs to be with broad international support. Only then can we be sure that any military action is, in fact, the appropriate response.
Even if you accept the government's version of events, the question of whether or not we can actually make any sort of strike that would impact Syria's chemical weapons stockpile is a valid concern. After all, the Syrians would know they only face a "limited" attack and could always move their chemical weapons stockpiles close to schools and hospitals. On the surface, the case to stay out of it seems strong. And yet . . . and yet . . .
Just as there are a large number of people opposed to intervening in Syria, there were a large number of people who supported the invasion of Iraq. And clearly, with Iraq, the American people got it wrong. It's true that most of us are weary of war, but it's also true that people tend to react emotionally. Is it possible the American people are getting it wrong now? Is it possible that because of the bad taste left in all our mouths by the way the Iraq war was handled, we're now overreacting in the other direction? Possibly.
If the US government's accusations are to be believed, we are not talking about hypothetical weapons of mass destruction supported by drawings and other flimsy evidence. Rather, we are talking about the use of such weapons on what seems to be a fairly large scale. Now some of you might remember that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds back in the 1980's and the world didn't respond in any meaningful way. If the world reaction had been different to that attack, might Bashar al-Assad have thought twice about using chemical weapons? Perhaps.
Preventing the use of chemical or biological weapons -- especially against civilians -- is not only an American security concern, but a real concern for the rest of the world as well. During the entire course of the Syrian civil war, Bashar al-Assad has shown himself to be a thug and a murderer and if his use of chemical weapons goes unchallenged, what then?
I think a couple of thing are clear. One is that the Bush Regime lying to the world about Iraqi weapons stockpiles is coming back to bite us. The conventions against the use of chemical weapons are international in scale; thus, they require an international response. But the world remembers Iraq and so other countries are reluctant to just accept American analysis of the situation -- even if American analysis really is the best information available.
The other is that a resolution passed by the US Senate based on evidence presented by American intelligence is not an international process, nor is it a process that the rest of the world has reason to have faith in. President Obama has repeatedly said that chemical weapons are not his red line, but the world's red line. If that's true, then it must be the international community that acts. The United States should not be acting alone and if any military action occurs, it needs to be with broad international support. Only then can we be sure that any military action is, in fact, the appropriate response.