It sounds like some sort of US military strike against Syria is inevitable:
President Barack Obama called his national security team together Saturday to talk about the next move in Syria. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper led off the three-hour White House meeting with detailed analysis of the evidence about the chemical weapons attack, the disposition of victims and what the administration now believes is a near air-tight circumstantial case that the Syrian regime was behind it.
Obama ordered a declassified report be prepared for public release before any military strike commences. That report, top advisers tell CBS News, is due to be released in a day or two.
I think it's clear that some sort of chemical incident happened last Wednesday that killed 300 people at a minimum. And I agree that the Syrian government is the most likely culprit, even though it really makes no sense that they would cross that line since they seem to have been winning lately. However, I want to see the evidence first. Not out of any sympathy to the Syrian regime, which I despise, but as assurance that we have correctly assigned the blame.
After the blame comes the punishment and Obama is going to try to thread this needle:
Administration and defense officials described the potential strikes as limited in scope, saying the goal would be to send a message to Mr. Assad without attempting to remove him.
If that message is too weak it will earn Obama even more scorn in the region. If it's too strong it risks tipping the war in favor of the rebels, quite a few of whom are rather nasty people in their own right. Assuming the US military and Obama get that right, what then?
How much collateral damage and civilian casualties are we willing to inflict? Have we thought about what kind of propaganda openings we will create?
How will Syria and Iran respond? Will they release even more chemical weapons and claim that US airstrikes set them off(assuming we have the knowledge to avoid accidentally striking them in the first place)? Will they retaliate with terrorist attacks against Israel, Europe, or even here in the US?
Here's a scary thought: If Assad really was crazy enough to use chemical weapons on such a scale, knowing that would pretty much demand a US/NATO response, how crazy is he willing to get with his own response to the US/NATO strikes? If he escalates, will we escalate in turn? Where and how would that end?
I can see the argument that a US/NATO response to the regime's actions(given they have proved the case) is required, but I also have a queasy feeling about how this is going to turn out. Lebanon and Iraq are already smoldering and ripe for their own tit-for-tat escalations. Rather than squashing any Syrian willingness to use chemical weapons, we might just set the whole region fully ablaze.
Recent Comments