Claims of at least 1300 people killed in single attack this week, in a rebel-leaning suburb of Damascus. A large number of the victims were children. Most of the victims had no sign of physical trauma, and had symptoms indicative of nerve gas poisoning. There was also hardly any physical damage caused by 12 low-explosive bombs that fell in the area, which are believed to have carried the chemicals.
I saw the pictures of the dead. I remember seeing similar pictures of Saddam Hussein's gassing of Kurds in 1986. The same postures of people fallen in place, almost like frozen murals. The last look on their faces a gasp for air. A death shared equally by old and young alike. There is no Hell to severe or prolonged for anyone who could have done these things. Saddam found this out.
But what can be done about this latest atrocity? The first problem is, who did it? It appears to be the work of the Syrian government, and not the rebels. Some experts have suggested that, given the scope of the attack, the weaponry would have had to be far more sophisticated than anything the rebels could have produced. But this is not yet proven.
And even if it is, there are no good options for intervention in Syria. Sure, we can lob a bunch of cruise missiles at Assad's military to send a "message", but it will unlikely do much to change the course of Syria's civil war or the way Assad chooses to pursue it. Worse, it will look indifferent -- the act of a bored superpower attempting to appear interested.
Assad and his government are not necessarily even the worst players in Syria's conflict. The indigenous rebel groups have been largely supplanted by a variety of Al Quaeda affiliated groups, one more brutal than the other. If Assad goes away, these guys win. That certainly doesn't help us, or our allies in the region.
There are really only two options that would achieve anything. Neither are perfect, or even good, but no other options would be really meaningful. The first is to do nothing -- let them continue killing each other and sort it out on their own. Act only if they directly threaten us our interests and allies. This is a cold and possibly short-sighted approach, because how this conflict ends will effect us in some way in the future. However, we can avoid the fiscal and human expense of another war in the Middle East after two that have together cost over $1 Trillion, nearly 10,000 American lives, 10's of thousands of indigenous lives -- and arguably achieved almost nothing.
The other option is on the other extreme -- we go all in, with the same level of effort as expended for the first Gulf War. Hundreds of thousands of troops, fully armed. Essentially, we go in and make peace, and shoot anyone who disagrees. This method has the potential for a better long-term outcome by allowing us to have a strong say in who wins the conflict. But it would require enormous resources.
At the very least, President Obama needs to start showing some determination to lead. He doesn't have to threaten a thing, but he does need to demonstrate outrage. He shouldn't have threatened a "red line" if he wasn't going to act on it. The time for "learning on the job" is over -- he needs to show some spine. This is not to undermine the enormous complexity of the situation -- there are no easy answers, and I'm not advocating for any one over another. However, part of the calculus within this situation is determining how to communicate in order to demonstrate dedication to your principles -- and promises. The President has to stop being the "Delegator in Chief" and show some personal leadership, even while difficult negotiations and planning are occurring behind the scenes.
In short, we need a definitive policy on this, sooner rather than later. Otherwise, we're going to find ourselves drawn-in, more and more over time, having given-up control over how we respond.
I saw the pictures of the dead. I remember seeing similar pictures of Saddam Hussein's gassing of Kurds in 1986. The same postures of people fallen in place, almost like frozen murals. The last look on their faces a gasp for air. A death shared equally by old and young alike. There is no Hell to severe or prolonged for anyone who could have done these things. Saddam found this out.
But what can be done about this latest atrocity? The first problem is, who did it? It appears to be the work of the Syrian government, and not the rebels. Some experts have suggested that, given the scope of the attack, the weaponry would have had to be far more sophisticated than anything the rebels could have produced. But this is not yet proven.
And even if it is, there are no good options for intervention in Syria. Sure, we can lob a bunch of cruise missiles at Assad's military to send a "message", but it will unlikely do much to change the course of Syria's civil war or the way Assad chooses to pursue it. Worse, it will look indifferent -- the act of a bored superpower attempting to appear interested.
Assad and his government are not necessarily even the worst players in Syria's conflict. The indigenous rebel groups have been largely supplanted by a variety of Al Quaeda affiliated groups, one more brutal than the other. If Assad goes away, these guys win. That certainly doesn't help us, or our allies in the region.
There are really only two options that would achieve anything. Neither are perfect, or even good, but no other options would be really meaningful. The first is to do nothing -- let them continue killing each other and sort it out on their own. Act only if they directly threaten us our interests and allies. This is a cold and possibly short-sighted approach, because how this conflict ends will effect us in some way in the future. However, we can avoid the fiscal and human expense of another war in the Middle East after two that have together cost over $1 Trillion, nearly 10,000 American lives, 10's of thousands of indigenous lives -- and arguably achieved almost nothing.
The other option is on the other extreme -- we go all in, with the same level of effort as expended for the first Gulf War. Hundreds of thousands of troops, fully armed. Essentially, we go in and make peace, and shoot anyone who disagrees. This method has the potential for a better long-term outcome by allowing us to have a strong say in who wins the conflict. But it would require enormous resources.
At the very least, President Obama needs to start showing some determination to lead. He doesn't have to threaten a thing, but he does need to demonstrate outrage. He shouldn't have threatened a "red line" if he wasn't going to act on it. The time for "learning on the job" is over -- he needs to show some spine. This is not to undermine the enormous complexity of the situation -- there are no easy answers, and I'm not advocating for any one over another. However, part of the calculus within this situation is determining how to communicate in order to demonstrate dedication to your principles -- and promises. The President has to stop being the "Delegator in Chief" and show some personal leadership, even while difficult negotiations and planning are occurring behind the scenes.
In short, we need a definitive policy on this, sooner rather than later. Otherwise, we're going to find ourselves drawn-in, more and more over time, having given-up control over how we respond.
