SMALL ESSAY: RISKS OF STRIKES AGAINST SYRIA

BY BILL HESSELL, Ph.D

Dangling questions indeed, the answers to which loudly proclaim "Don't do it!".  Obama claims a missile strike is justified, even necessitated, to enforce the international norm against use of chemical weapons. All can readily agree that their use does threaten the potential well-being of all nations, and should be responded to by all nations concerned with  mankind's future on earth.  But when has violence and killing ever reduced the likelihood and frequency of violence and killing occurring?  And who granted us the authority to be the sole determiner and provider of the timing and the means of punishment to be administered to violators of international norms?  Our administration alone is usurping that power, with no mandate or legal justification. Righteous proclamations are not legal justifications, even when all of us find Assad's actions abhorrent. To reduce fear of escalation, we can easily say the strikes will be limited. We have heard that before, thousands of our men and women have died in actions that began with insurances of their limited extent and duration.  We can control our "limited" initial action, we can not control its consequences, how others respond to it, and what that might further demand of us.  Kerry says inaction would be worse than action, an admission action is not a good option.  He fails, though, to raise the possibility of other forms of action other than our unilateral missile strikes.  Strong, responsible leadership would be engaging the world community in considering and uniting behind these actions.