Should the US go to war with, errr.. I mean, be authorized to use force, against, ummm... I mean 'display in a non-threatening way a show of influence that will have no effect on al-Assad's ability to wage war except for the specific instance and circumstance in which we choose cause we're awesome like that', in Syria?
 |
| I remember being quite convinced by the end of this presentation |
The correct answer is yes, but only after a series of steps are followed that ironically enough, were laid out pretty clearly in the run up to the Iraq War. First, the presentation of evidence to both the international community as well as the world public of the evidence that we currently have. I would like to see something from the UN or an official charge presented to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (
OPCW). Much like Secretary Colin Powell's presentation in February of 2003 that left little doubt in the worlds minds at the time, though leaves some bad taste in our mouths years later, as most wars do after being left in the sun for more then 6 years.
We then need an international condemnation and steps for recompense for the act, such as with
UN resolution 1441. Then the step that Obama seems giddy with, gathering authorization to use force from congress if Syria does not comply with the international demands. Because even though the traditional 'Act of War' concept appears to be as trendy as Bill Clinton's sense of shame, the idea that one man in this country can attack another country without any direct provocation is truly scary. I understand precedence for a quick reactionary strike in retaliation when a country and regime disregards our or the worlds will, but I think the window for something quick and decisive in this case has long since passed and was passed on when the President said that we would do due diligence in making sure this was a violation of chemical weapons use.
We then issue an ultimatum for al-Assad to step aside if he does not adhere to international will, similar to the
Arab nation call in March of 2003, just prior to our invasion, by which of course I mean non-meaningful not war like-in-any-way tiny military action.
Even with all the build up and buy in, George W. Bush was still regarded by a large portion of the world, with about as much respect as a Rodney Dangerfield punchline, for going to war with a country that did not pose an imminent threat. Even though Iraq was the first to use chemical weapons against a neighboring country for the first time in decades, invaded another country, Kuwait, for which it failed to live up to it's terms of surrender once we liberated Kuwait by denying UN inspectors into the country for 5 years prior to the build up to war. And this was after we, the public,
received the clear evidence presented to the public that still seems to not be in the plans for the current administration, for which we have
little reason to trust and believe when it comes to matters of national security.
The World War II comparison with Syria is almost funnier, when a non-'boots on the ground' attack on the US (Pearl Harbor) justified going to war with a country that was gassing it's own people (Germany), now we are justifying a non-'boots on the ground' attack to deter people from gassing their own people. Simplistic sure, but a valuable lesson in the logic that flows through politicians minds.
 |
| At least he speaks good French. |
I understand the reservations this nation has in attacking a country that could not have any realistic means of harming us, but we believe in a world that does not use chemical warfare and we have to support that idea, but there are two processes, quick decisive action with a clear message behind it, or the longer, more tedious route of building consensus, case then taking definitive action. The former would have made sense, but our President was too nervous about taking action, now we sit back and laugh as he and
his crack team fumbles his way through the latter process. And, or course, I can't have a post about Syria without pointing and laughing at the ultimatum that Secretary Kerry put out there, immediately dismissed, then ran with when it actually turned out to be a good idea. Kind of like the husband that makes a joke about having a three way with the waitress over there, then starts laughing at himself while hoping his wife lifts an eyebrow and goes 'hmmm....'.
At some point it would be delightful to have the discussion of whether the US should continue to be the police force of the world, but to deny that we find ourselves currently in this role is naive. We sign on to these ideals that countries should not use chemical weapons, we pour our resources into a force capable of monitoring and striking anywhere in the world to enforce these terms, and until a day that we abdicate that role to an international force or another country, it is a burden that we must uphold.
I can't wait to hear what the President has to say about all this tonight. My respect for him would grow if he took a moment to laugh out loud at everything that has transpired in the last week.
