The United States appears to be pushing for a strike. Kerry had declared that the Syrian offer to let UN inspectors as "too little, too late" and even now is saying that a thirty day program to put Syria's chemical weapons under international control is not enough. The United Nations is not going to let any resolution authorizing force to pass.
The United States government says it has evidence that Assad launched the chemical attacks but won't show the evidence citing national security. If you don't show the evidence, why would I believe you? Given the scandals this summer--NSA, IRS, Benghazi etc...--why would anyone trust this administration even if they did show "evidence". The rest of the world remembers the build up to 2003 and Iraq.
No one condones chemical warfare. No one condones out of control military aggression either. Especially on flimsy pretexts.
I think it is likely that Assad did launch a chemical strike. But we don't know that conclusively. The opposition, full of al-Qeida elements, may have done it to pull the US into another quagmire.
If you thought Iraq was bad, Syria would be even worse.
Would a US strike even change anything? The Russians will rebuild whatever gets destroyed. Any chemical weapons that are hit will drift around and in the chaos, may even fall into the wrong hands. Of course, the Syrian government would constitute "the wrong hands".
Welcome to the Middle East.
Stay out of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment