Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
There is lots of proof there was a chemical attack. But did the President of Syria athorize it? Did someone in the government launch the attack intentionally? Did someone in the Syrian military use the wrong shells? Did the rebels come across a cache of chemical weapons and not know what they were? Did the rebels come across chemical weapons, and knowingly use them hoping it would be blamed on the Syrian military?
|
That covers the most likely scenarios, and yeah - a shit-ton of questions there.
For me, that's all secondary to the fact that the West has no clear objective or parameters over there. Bring down Assad? Not gonna happen and even if it were a possibility, there's no good successor.
Lob a few cruise missiles as a slap on the wrist? My guess is this is the likely outcome, probably some innocent people die, Assad weathers that no problem and the war continues, the USA & whoever else participates look like idiots for blowing a few things up in a pointless gesture. Again that probably kills civilians.
Even with that bare minimum there are so many ways the intervention escalates. The sad reality is that Syria is now a failed state where no one can maintain central control, and the fighting is going to drag on for a good long time. Eventually (if not this time) some other powers are going to get involved and the thing will become a bigger mess.
My main point is, as a general pacifist I'm opposed to military interventions unless there's a huge clear-cut humanitarian stake (*some* parts of the Yugoslavian War fit this IMO, not all tho), but if you're going to do it have a set and achievable goal and a good understanding of what's happening on the ground. Otherwise stay the fuck out.