The massive chemical attack in Syria was yesterday. Today, the world reacts.
1. France has called for the use of force in Syria if it can be "confirmed" that chemical weapons were used. Of course, France also says that absolutely no troops ought be sent to Syria. What does that mean? Assuming that the translation of the French foreign minister's remarks is correct, it most likely means the French are calling for air strikes on Assad targets.
2. Turkey has announced that the latest attack is intolerable and is further action by Assad beyond a red line that was crossed long ago. Notice how in one statement the Turks manage to condemn Assad and to point out the emptiness of the warnings given by president Obama. After all, it was Obama who said that using or even moving chemical weapons was a red line for America and that crossing that line would bring major consequences. Turkey is not (yet) threatening military action.
3. The UN Security Council met and agreed on the need for "clarity". Nevertheless, the Security Council could not agree to ask the UN inspectors who are in Damascus, less than ten miles from the site of the attack, to try to determine if yesterday's atrocity was, in fact, a chemical weapons attack. Once again, Russia and China prevented any action from being taken.
4. The United States has done nothing other than issue the statement that I quoted at length yesterday.
5. The Assad forces in Syria conducted air raids on the area of the attack with conventional bombs. The raids came during the funerals being held for the hundreds killed yesterday.
So what does this all mean? It seems that Assad will once again get away with murder, literally. If the French are the ones who are "leading" towards a response, it is safe to say that any response is unlikely. If the UN is involved in bringing Assad to "justice", it is safe to say that there will be, to use and old chant in a different way, "no justice, no peace". What is lacking in this whole mess is leadership, a commodity that only the USA or a united European response could provide. In reality, that means that only an American president could provide the necessary leadership to bring the world together (at least most of the world) to condemn Assad and to take out him and his chemical weapons.
Too bad our president is too busy campaigning to focus on the real world.
1. France has called for the use of force in Syria if it can be "confirmed" that chemical weapons were used. Of course, France also says that absolutely no troops ought be sent to Syria. What does that mean? Assuming that the translation of the French foreign minister's remarks is correct, it most likely means the French are calling for air strikes on Assad targets.
2. Turkey has announced that the latest attack is intolerable and is further action by Assad beyond a red line that was crossed long ago. Notice how in one statement the Turks manage to condemn Assad and to point out the emptiness of the warnings given by president Obama. After all, it was Obama who said that using or even moving chemical weapons was a red line for America and that crossing that line would bring major consequences. Turkey is not (yet) threatening military action.
3. The UN Security Council met and agreed on the need for "clarity". Nevertheless, the Security Council could not agree to ask the UN inspectors who are in Damascus, less than ten miles from the site of the attack, to try to determine if yesterday's atrocity was, in fact, a chemical weapons attack. Once again, Russia and China prevented any action from being taken.
4. The United States has done nothing other than issue the statement that I quoted at length yesterday.
5. The Assad forces in Syria conducted air raids on the area of the attack with conventional bombs. The raids came during the funerals being held for the hundreds killed yesterday.
So what does this all mean? It seems that Assad will once again get away with murder, literally. If the French are the ones who are "leading" towards a response, it is safe to say that any response is unlikely. If the UN is involved in bringing Assad to "justice", it is safe to say that there will be, to use and old chant in a different way, "no justice, no peace". What is lacking in this whole mess is leadership, a commodity that only the USA or a united European response could provide. In reality, that means that only an American president could provide the necessary leadership to bring the world together (at least most of the world) to condemn Assad and to take out him and his chemical weapons.
Too bad our president is too busy campaigning to focus on the real world.
No comments:
Post a Comment