excerpt:
Based on numerous statements from Obama and his staff, including Secretary of State John Kerry, the military strike:
– is not intended to support rebel forces fighting the Bashar al-Assad regime;
– is not intended to achieve regime change by removing Assad from power;
– is not intended to deter Assad’s conventional weapons arsenal, which is responsible for 99 percent of the 100,000 deaths in this conflict.
The purpose, say Obama, Kerry and other supporters, is to send a message that Assad’s use of chemical weapons crosses a line. The implication is that if he takes a step back across that line, Assad can do anything he wants.
Chemical weapons are ghastly. The United States should oppose their use. It should have done so – but didn’t – when Iraq used them during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War.
In my view, the American people will want to be shown a better reason for U.S. intervention in Syria. If the rebels were seeking to establish a more open society and had a leader we could accept, that would help. But many of the rebels are jihadist, and some have shown that they, like Assad, are capable of brutality and murder.
Unfortunately, the president’s policy, to be further elaborated upon in a speech to the nation on September 10, has detractors on both sides of the argument. Ironically, many of the loudest voices on both sides belong to the same party, the Republicans. Some, like Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) say the United States has no vital interest in Syria and should stay out of the turmoil there. Others, like Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) say the United States should use its full resources as a world power to remove Assad from power by force and are willing to consider putting U.S. troops on the ground.
No comments:
Post a Comment