For John, BLUF: There is a lot of opposition out there to a US attack on Syria. Nothing to see here; just move along.
Here are some thoughts of Mr Hans Blix, who has been a UN WMD Inspector. This is just an extract from a longer article, "Even if Assad Used Chemical Weapons, The West Has No Mandate to Act as a Global Policeman". The subtitle is "By ordering air strikes against Syria without UN security council support, Obama will be doing the same as Bush in 2003". That seems to be a fairly strong condemnation of possible action. The source of this item is the web site Common Dreams.
It is true that the UN security council is not a reliable global policeman. It may be slow to take action, or paralysed because of disagreement between members. But do we want the US or Nato or "alliances of willing states" as global policemen either? Unlike George Bush in 2003, the Obama administration is not trigger-happy and contemptuous of the United Nations and the rules of its charter, which allow the use of armed force only in self-defence or with an authorisation from the security council. Yet Obama, like Bush and Blair, seems ready to ignore the council and order armed strikes on Syria with political support from only the UK, France and some others.I think Mr Blix is a little cranky about "W", but basically his analysis is pretty good.Such action could not be "in self-defence" or "retaliation", as the US, the UK and France have not been attacked. To punish the Assad government for using chemical weapons would be the action of self-appointed global policemen – action that, in my view, would be very unwise.
While much evidence points to the guilt of the Assad regime, would not due process require that judgment and consideration of action take place in the UN security council and await the report of the inspectors that the UN has sent to Syria – at the demand of the UK and many other UN members?
Regards — Cliff
3 comments:
I'm fearful that my self-serving narcissism is setting in and I don't have an opinion pro or con on the issue, other then I don't want to get involved.
Actually I'm embarrassed to have that feeling and I'm having second thoughts on admitting that feeling. I can't remember not having an opinion in such a manner previously in my life.
I think I'm going to reread the reporting from Frontline right now.
Most people I talk to don't really have an opinion, and won't unless and until this thing blows up.
It might just be a blip, like the cruise missiles on that aspirin factory in Sudan.
There is a small chance it could make Gavrilo Princip shudder in his grave.
Regards — Cliff
Morality aside, this is Syria's problem to solve. NOT the US!!! The ONLY reason we are contemplating action is because Obama can't keep his mouth shut and makes promises he can't possibly keep. Now...to save face (what little he has) he MUST do something. In short, risk American lives so that he looks good. It is very much reminiscent of the rumored complaint of ground troops in Patton's (aka Old Blood and Guts) 3rd Army...."His guts. Our blood."
There is not ONE US national interest threatened at the moment by anything going on in Syria. Good heavens...we've stood with our hands in our pockets through many genocides.....
Post a Comment