Will we ever know who sprayed chemical weapons on innocent Syrian citizens caught between two sets of mass murderers? Unlikely, but that will not stop every Western nation from exploring their military options. The U.S. already has Naval assets in the area, and they are just itching to launch their way into another intractable war. Here is a user's guide to the war so far.
What is the proper response? If we ask questions first and shoot later--we risk taking too long to mount a retaliation that proves we are still capable of deterring chemical aggression (clearly we weren't as of several days ago). If we shoot first, and ask questions later, we ignite another Iraq or Afghan conflict. If we act to destroy all the chemical weapons, we risk killing more civilians with the gasses we are attempting to destroy, and the use of which we seek to punish. If we kill Assad, we risk the installation of a far-worse option (if one exists). If we kill a few Syrian soldiers, have we really responded in a meaningful way?
If we've learned anything, it's that there is no such thing as a proportionate response. We've also learned that in the new world of warfare, the enemy is far too elusive for conventional responses. If a response is developed, let it be one that most of the world can agree on. Let it be one that truly deters because it has the backing of the friends of Syria. Let it be one that signifies an end to the tolerance of the death of tens of thousands already wrought by conventional weapons. Only a response that encompasses these principles is truly proportionate.
No comments:
Post a Comment