Let’s Not Have Another War (Syria Edition, A Handy Checklist)

August 29, 2013

Tags: Assad, Chemical weapons, Syria
Posted in: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Military

This article also appeared on the Huffington Post

Hah! You just crossed my red line with your chemical weapon eyes, clearing the way to me cruise missile you!

But enough about me. Like me, I am sure that you are overjoyed at the prospect of the U.S. inserting itself even deeper into another MidEast civil war (I think it is still Syria at present but the U.S. could have invaded another place between the time this was written and when you are reading it.)

The United Nations does not say to do it. The United Kingdom voted against it, the first time in two decades the U.K. has not supported U.S. military action. The U.S. Congress will not have an opportunity to vote on it, though many members have reservations. Many in our own military have doubts. Half of all American oppose it. Why does the president insist America must attack Syria?

Obama’s reasons seem vague at best, something from the 19th century about “firing a shot across Assad’s bow” as if this is a pirate movie. Or maybe protecting the U.S., though Syria (and others) have had chemical weapons for years without threatening the U.S. Even Saddam did not use chemical weapons against the U.S. during two American-led invasions of his own country. To protect women and children? If that is the goal, the U.S. might best send doctors and medicine to the refugee camps, and nerve gas antidotes into Syria itself.

Vagueness is a very poor basis for the U.S. entering into another war in the Middle East, throwing itself deeper into a chaotic and volatile situation it little understands.

So let’s reprise our handy questions summary:

The U.S. is intervening in Syria’s civil war because maybe it was Assad who used poison gas.

The poison gas killed a couple of thousand people. A horrible thing by any measure.

Close to 100,000 people have been killed in the Syrian civil war to date.

The U.S. is thus going to war again in the Middle East because a tiny percentage of the deaths were caused by gas instead of artillery, aerial bombs, machine guns, tanks, rockets, grenades, car bombs, mines, bad food, or sticks and stones.

Because it seems Obama is not asking himself some important questions, here’s a list he may wish to consult:

Is it Iraq again? That went well.

Does it have oil?

Does it pose a direct threat to America, i.e., knife to our throat?

Can you define specifically what U.S. interests are at stake (no fair just citing generic “world peace” or “evil dictator” or a magical “red line”)? Even John Boehner made sense on this question.

Does the Chemical Weapons Treaty say it is the U.S.’ job to take punitive action against violators?

Is Syria’s evil dictator somehow super-worse than the many other evil dictators scattered across the world where the U.S. is not intervening?

Did Syria attack any U.S. forces somewhere? Kidnap Americans? Commit 9/11?

Does the U.S. have a specific, detailed follow-on plan for what happens if Assad departs or is killed?

Does the U.S. have a specific plan to ensure weapons given to the rebels, some of whom are openly al Qaeda, won’t migrate out of Syria as they did in Libya?

Does the U.S. believe its secret deal with the “rebels” whoever the hell they are to hand over Syria’s chemical weapons after they take power is airtight?

With that in mind, can the U.S. tell with accuracy the “good” rebels from the “bad” rebels?

Has the U.S. considered in detail what affect a rebel (Sunni) victory in Syria will have on chaotic Iraq next door and the greater Middle East?

What are the possible unintended consequences of another military strike? Are they worth whatever is hoped to be gained by the strike?

Obama, if the answer was “No” to any of the above questions, you should not intervene in Syria.

BONUS: The U.S.’ use of white phosphorus and tear gas against civilian areas in Fallujah during the liberation of Iraq, and the use of depleted uranium munitions during the Iraq and Afghan crusades clearly do not in any way constitute the use of chemical weapons. Nor did Agent Orange and napalm in Vietnam.

Also this:

Copyright © 2020. All rights reserved. The views expressed here are solely those of the author(s) in their private capacity.