I know that there are some of you who think that I spend too much time writing about the situation in Syria. Today, however, it is impossible to write too much about events in that Middle Eastern country. In two earlier posts, I outlined the news that the Assad forces have once again used chemical weapons against their foes in the civil war. Today's attacks were much larger than any previous ones. While casualty figures continue to come in, even the low reports put the dead at many hundreds of civilians and a multiple of that figured who are injured. How can it be that the world has come to this? Even for a war which has claimed 120,000 dead, today's attacks were notable for their sheer savagery and lack of humanity.
The question remains: How did we get to this point? There are many who share the blame. Obviously, Assad and his commanders are the ones who actually used the weapons. Assad's allies in Iran also get major blame since he would never use these weapons without their consent. Even the terrorists of Hezbollah should get some blame since they too are critical allies of the Assad regime. Indeed, today's attack may be a retaliation for the car bombs in Lebanon in neighborhoods filled with Hezbollah supporters. Instead of "an eye for and eye", Hezbollah may want "a corpse for a corpse."
Outside of the actual perpetrators of this war crime, however, the largest bit of credit for the atrocity should go to the president of the United States, Barack Obama. Obama had America stand by and do nothing as Assad used chemical weapons in very small attacks. Indeed, the reaction from Obama made clear that Assad would suffer no consequences were he to go ahead with large scale chemical attacks like the one today. Let's break this down a bit.
1. There are only four countries that could realistically have done something to stop Assad's use of chemical weapons: Turkey, Russia, Israel and the USA. In order to prevent the use of the chemicals, a nation needs a substantial and formidable military force which could either destroy the bases where the chemicals are stored or at least threaten to do so. Clearly, America has the forces to do this. Turkey, which is Syria's northern neighbor has the second largest army in NATO and could relatively easily sweep through the much weakened Syrian army to take control of that country and to take out Assad. Turkey, however, has its own serious problems which make usage of its army highly unlikely. Russia has a major military base right in Syria on the Mediterranean coast. It could bring air power to pulverize Syria in hours. Russia, however, is a major sponsor of the Assad regime. Russia is unlikely to bring down its friend and replace it with a hostile government. Israel has a strong air force which could be in Syrian airspace in a matter of minutes. Were Israel to attack Assad, however, it would probably face major counterattacks from Iran and Hezbollah as well as possible other action from the remaining Arab countries. As a result, Israel keeps the use of its military power restricted to dealing with items that directly threaten the security of the Jewish state.
2. Obama actually warned the Syrians not to use chemical weapons. Just a year ago, he announced that use of chemical weapons would cross the red line of the USA. That statement came at a point when there were news reports that Assad was moving the chemical weapons in order to prepare them for use. Obama's warning stopped the use of the weapons for six months. Then, last winter, Assad carried out a small scale strike with the chemical weapons. Obama's response was silence. Then Israel and France announced that they had proof that Assad had used chemical weapons. More silence came from Obama until he felt he had to say something. At that point, the president told the world that the USA needed concrete proof that chemical weapons had been used by Assad. Obama never explained why the proof that the French and Israelis had was not sufficient, but the president is not usually big on such details. A small second use of the chemical weapons followed.
3. Months later, America announced that it now had proof that chemical weapons had been used by the Assad forces. The stage was set for the American response to this acknowledged crossing of the red line. So what did Obama do? His spokesman made clear that isolated use of chemical weapons was not really what Obama had been talking about when he mentioned the red line. In short, Obama walked back his red line statement. For Assad, the message was clear: America was okay with the use of chemical weapons. America was weak. Obama's statements could be ignored. Assad was free to deal with the rebels however he saw fit.
Today, something like one thousand innocent people died because Barack Obama did not have the courage to follow through on the position that he, himself took. Assad, who now knows that there is no reason to fear retribution from the only force that could inflict is upon him, is taking out his enemies including the wives and children and parents of those men who oppose him. We can only assume that in the next month we will see a big upswing in chemical attacks in Syria. Let us pray that this conclusion is wrong, but recognize that it will likely be the reality.
So Barack Obama, who won the friggin Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing, is now bringing death and destruction to thousands of innocents in Syria.
CONGRATULATIONS MR. PRESIDENT
The question remains: How did we get to this point? There are many who share the blame. Obviously, Assad and his commanders are the ones who actually used the weapons. Assad's allies in Iran also get major blame since he would never use these weapons without their consent. Even the terrorists of Hezbollah should get some blame since they too are critical allies of the Assad regime. Indeed, today's attack may be a retaliation for the car bombs in Lebanon in neighborhoods filled with Hezbollah supporters. Instead of "an eye for and eye", Hezbollah may want "a corpse for a corpse."
Outside of the actual perpetrators of this war crime, however, the largest bit of credit for the atrocity should go to the president of the United States, Barack Obama. Obama had America stand by and do nothing as Assad used chemical weapons in very small attacks. Indeed, the reaction from Obama made clear that Assad would suffer no consequences were he to go ahead with large scale chemical attacks like the one today. Let's break this down a bit.
1. There are only four countries that could realistically have done something to stop Assad's use of chemical weapons: Turkey, Russia, Israel and the USA. In order to prevent the use of the chemicals, a nation needs a substantial and formidable military force which could either destroy the bases where the chemicals are stored or at least threaten to do so. Clearly, America has the forces to do this. Turkey, which is Syria's northern neighbor has the second largest army in NATO and could relatively easily sweep through the much weakened Syrian army to take control of that country and to take out Assad. Turkey, however, has its own serious problems which make usage of its army highly unlikely. Russia has a major military base right in Syria on the Mediterranean coast. It could bring air power to pulverize Syria in hours. Russia, however, is a major sponsor of the Assad regime. Russia is unlikely to bring down its friend and replace it with a hostile government. Israel has a strong air force which could be in Syrian airspace in a matter of minutes. Were Israel to attack Assad, however, it would probably face major counterattacks from Iran and Hezbollah as well as possible other action from the remaining Arab countries. As a result, Israel keeps the use of its military power restricted to dealing with items that directly threaten the security of the Jewish state.
2. Obama actually warned the Syrians not to use chemical weapons. Just a year ago, he announced that use of chemical weapons would cross the red line of the USA. That statement came at a point when there were news reports that Assad was moving the chemical weapons in order to prepare them for use. Obama's warning stopped the use of the weapons for six months. Then, last winter, Assad carried out a small scale strike with the chemical weapons. Obama's response was silence. Then Israel and France announced that they had proof that Assad had used chemical weapons. More silence came from Obama until he felt he had to say something. At that point, the president told the world that the USA needed concrete proof that chemical weapons had been used by Assad. Obama never explained why the proof that the French and Israelis had was not sufficient, but the president is not usually big on such details. A small second use of the chemical weapons followed.
3. Months later, America announced that it now had proof that chemical weapons had been used by the Assad forces. The stage was set for the American response to this acknowledged crossing of the red line. So what did Obama do? His spokesman made clear that isolated use of chemical weapons was not really what Obama had been talking about when he mentioned the red line. In short, Obama walked back his red line statement. For Assad, the message was clear: America was okay with the use of chemical weapons. America was weak. Obama's statements could be ignored. Assad was free to deal with the rebels however he saw fit.
Today, something like one thousand innocent people died because Barack Obama did not have the courage to follow through on the position that he, himself took. Assad, who now knows that there is no reason to fear retribution from the only force that could inflict is upon him, is taking out his enemies including the wives and children and parents of those men who oppose him. We can only assume that in the next month we will see a big upswing in chemical attacks in Syria. Let us pray that this conclusion is wrong, but recognize that it will likely be the reality.
So Barack Obama, who won the friggin Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing, is now bringing death and destruction to thousands of innocents in Syria.
CONGRATULATIONS MR. PRESIDENT
No comments:
Post a Comment