Reuters today published an article discussing how there are no acceptable military responses by the United States to the use of chemical weapons by Syria. The bulk of the article considers what would be an appropriate proportional response to the use of sarin in only two isolated cases.
The article is an outrage. The idea of seeking a proportional response to the use of a nerve agent like sarin for mass killing is simply insane. Is it possible that one could over react to a government using weapons of mass destruction against its own people? The point of a military response is to be so overwhelming as to force the other side to concede. Contrary to contemporary liberal thought, the idea is not to match one's response to what the other side has done. If there is any doubt about that, just remember how the war in Vietnam was fought. President Johnson insisted on a gradual "escalation" of American efforts to match what the North Vietnamese were doing. As a result, the North never had to face the overwhelming force of the American armed forces. The proportional response policy let the North survive until America gave up. Meanwhile, over 50,000 Americans died in battle. Just imagine what would have happened had Johnson ordered an all out assault on the North Vietnamese. The war would have lasted only a short time and many fewer people would have died. But it would not have been proportional (gasp)!
Both the Gulf War and the later invasion of Iraq were fought with overwhelming force by the USA. The Gulf War lasted four days. The initial invasion of Iraq did not take much longer. Only when America proved incapable of dealing with the results of a quick victory did the fighting become a problem.
An attack on Syria's chemical storage depots does not come with the downside of the involvement in Iraq. There is no need for America to stay in Syria once the chemical weapons are destroyed. Our involvement could end in a short time and then we could just withdraw. Sure, there would be chaos in Syria; well, guess what, there is chaos in Syria now. Yes, people would still be dying in the Syrian civil war, but that is already happening. Neither side, however, would have access to chemical weapons.
Part of the destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons would involve the destruction of Syria's air defenses. That would help the rebels. So? It would also mean that the bombing of civilian targets would end. It would also mean that the need for so many refugees to flee Syria would be lessened.
America does not have the responsibility to make sure that there is peace in Syria. We should, however, do all we can to prevent the use of chemical weapons, particularly since those weapons could be trained on our cities in the future.
The article is an outrage. The idea of seeking a proportional response to the use of a nerve agent like sarin for mass killing is simply insane. Is it possible that one could over react to a government using weapons of mass destruction against its own people? The point of a military response is to be so overwhelming as to force the other side to concede. Contrary to contemporary liberal thought, the idea is not to match one's response to what the other side has done. If there is any doubt about that, just remember how the war in Vietnam was fought. President Johnson insisted on a gradual "escalation" of American efforts to match what the North Vietnamese were doing. As a result, the North never had to face the overwhelming force of the American armed forces. The proportional response policy let the North survive until America gave up. Meanwhile, over 50,000 Americans died in battle. Just imagine what would have happened had Johnson ordered an all out assault on the North Vietnamese. The war would have lasted only a short time and many fewer people would have died. But it would not have been proportional (gasp)!
Both the Gulf War and the later invasion of Iraq were fought with overwhelming force by the USA. The Gulf War lasted four days. The initial invasion of Iraq did not take much longer. Only when America proved incapable of dealing with the results of a quick victory did the fighting become a problem.
An attack on Syria's chemical storage depots does not come with the downside of the involvement in Iraq. There is no need for America to stay in Syria once the chemical weapons are destroyed. Our involvement could end in a short time and then we could just withdraw. Sure, there would be chaos in Syria; well, guess what, there is chaos in Syria now. Yes, people would still be dying in the Syrian civil war, but that is already happening. Neither side, however, would have access to chemical weapons.
Part of the destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons would involve the destruction of Syria's air defenses. That would help the rebels. So? It would also mean that the bombing of civilian targets would end. It would also mean that the need for so many refugees to flee Syria would be lessened.
America does not have the responsibility to make sure that there is peace in Syria. We should, however, do all we can to prevent the use of chemical weapons, particularly since those weapons could be trained on our cities in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment