Assad clearly deserves a strong response, and only a military one would be sufficient, but I lean against it unless it is our supporting regionally-initiated action, for a number of reasons. A missile strike in itself is unlikely to topple Assad, the collateral damage which would be inflicted, the subsequent actions which would be required, our deplorable history with middle east interventions, among them the reasons. The timing of our now being willing to strike is in reaction to the terrible violation of international law and human rights, but the timing also would divert our national attention from the NSA surveillance issue, which the government does not want to confront. If we were to get actively involved in Syria, success in the endeavor would have come much more readily in the early days of the rebellion there against Assad, when his government was on the ropes and the opposition more unified, with al Qaeda not as involved as it is now. Tough issue, a stronger world leader would have brought regional factors together early on and acted much sooner.
No comments:
Post a Comment