It’s been a banner week for US foreign policy, let me tell ya. The President is claiming that it’s not his red line that’s in question, but the world’s–true, in a way, but he is the one who chose to call it a red line–and he called it his. On the domestic front, meantime, the Secretary of State is saying that Obama can bomb Syria no matter how Congress votes. Indeed, a surefire way to garner support–tell the people you’re asking permission of that you don’t really need their permission. It’s like watching Don Knotts and Tim Conway rob a bank.
The justification for this, of course, is that the only thing we’re doing is sending a message regarding the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime.
Thing is, some people have been saying that there’s no way that Assad would use chemical weapons, because he’s winning. That might be true–however, the fact that Assad is willing to go to a people’s war indicates some degree of desperation. Either he’s worried about losing to the rebels, or about becoming an Iranian puppet instead of a client.
But there;s more going on here. If you recall, back in March there was rumor that chemical weapons had been used in Syria. It was all over the news media for a little bit, then dropped off the face of the earth.
Well, evidence started surfacing that maybe Assad didn’t use chemical weapons, but that the rebels used them instead, if any were used. So the story was dropped like a firebomb over Tokyo.
Now, here’s what I’m not saying. I’m not saying, aye or nay, that one side or the other decided that nerve gas deployment would be a good idea. What I am saying is that maybe, just maybe, we should look a little bit harder and more vigorously into this intel before we start doing things that put us on the path to war. Because the President can talk all he likes about limited strikes, but what happens after the missiles hit is not in his hands.
‘Til next time,
Lowell Van Ness