WAR TOLL- Two things have struck me in the controversy regarding whether the United States should execute a Syrian attack from either a moral and humanitarian or national security interest viewpoint. The first is a bit of hypocrisy on our part. We had virtually no compunction about the use of poison gas by our then allies, the Iraqis, against Iran in the 1980s. We also ignored the genocidal atrocities in central Africa 20 years ago, and had little apparent concern over the devastating bombings we inflicted on Germany and Japan (to include two atomic bombs) that resulted in hundreds of thousands of nonmilitary, civilian casualties at the end of World War II. Second, isn’t it somewhat ludicrous to dictate rules of war? In effect, if we “punish” Bashar al-Assad with the currently proposed type of limited air strikes for use of poison gas on civilian populations, are we in fact saying he gets a pass to keep the killing going by other means, as long as it doesn’t involve poison gas? What will be accomplished? While I personally abhor the toll that the Syrian civil war has taken on the countless innocent people caught in the crossfire, I am not convinced that our national security interests are at stake, and the possibility of having the conflict spill outside Syrian borders is real. An attack is not worth the risk or price, if our major objective is to save face as opposed to forcing Syrian regime change. G. Lansing Blackshaw, Belfast ttp://bangordailynews/2013/09/04/opinion/thursday-sept-5-2013-wheat-keha-and-syria/
Posted on: Sun, 08 Sep 2013 16:14:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015