It was one year ago to the month that President Obama warned Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, about the use of poison gas. Use of this weapon by al-Assad against rebel forces in the civil war conflict would invite retribution by the United States. It was, as Obama said, his red line.
But events have shown that Obama's red line is proving to be more onerous to him than to al-Assad. It marked an expansion of the US's role as the world's cop to include the world's weapons referee as well. The US would decide what weapons may or may not be used in war and gas is on the “No Use” list.
This opines that there is a good way to kill one's opponent and a bad way to liquidate him. Gas is the bad way. It indiscriminately kills children, women, noncombatants, and maybe some intended foes.
The good way to slaughter the enemy is with a surgical strike by a Tomahawk missile loaded with half-a-ton of high explosives. But Tomahawks have their drawbacks. It leaves a crater 25-feet across, flattens everything within a radius of 150 feet, can be deadly to anyone with 600 feet of the blast, and sends shrapnel flying as much as a half a mile.
It also indiscriminately kills children, women, noncombatants, and maybe some bad guys.
Face it: War is the total abandonment of all rules. The paper that the rules are written on is good only to light fuses. The sole conventions observed by both sides are those that prevent their retaliatory use. The US's proxy war with Iraq against Iran proves this.
According to recently declassified documents by the National Archives, the US provided Saddam Hussein with satellite imagery showing Iranian troop concentrations knowing that Hussein would attack these targets with mustard gas and sarin, a gas 26 times more deadly than cyanide gas.
These documents cite evidence showing that Hussein used mustard gas and sarin just before four major offensives that relied on US satellite imagery. Sarin was sold to Hussein by the US under a duel use cover, it could be used as an agricultural pesticide or in whatever way Hussein chose.
Moreover, the new evidence suggests that the Reagan administration knew about the gas attacks but nevertheless continued to make common-cause with Hussein against Iran. This makes the US fully complicit in their use.
Hussein dared to use gas against Iran because he knew that Iran would not or could not respond in kind.
It is the height of demagoguery for the US to condemn al-Assad for something we are guilty of and to do so without evidence.
Lacking culpatory evidence it comes down to this: Who had the most to lose by using gas and who had the most to gain? Here the answer is clear.
It was al-Assad who had the most to lose by using poison gas. He was winning the war and his own troops were in the vicinity of its use.
And it was rebel forces who had the most to gain by using gas. They were losing the war. It is reasonable to assume that they used it with the intent to blame the al-Assad government. Indeed, a UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria said there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that it was the rebels who had used a nerve agent.
Now because of the impolitic red-line drawn by Obama, and his oft repeated warnings to Syria, the US faces two impossible choices, each worse than the other
Choice one: The US can do nothing showing that our words have a hollow ring and can be disregarded with impunity.
Choice two: The US can launch a series of strikes with Tomahawk cruise missiles.
If choice two is selected, what will be the cost in lives? In dollars? What shall the US bomb and with how many bombs? Why---to punish al-Assad, to help the Muslim-backed rebels, or to overthrow the al-Assad government? And how will China, Russia , Iran, and other al-Assad supporters react? Has the US even considered these questions?
The probability is that Tomahawks will be used. It is ironic that the military option will kill many times more civilians than the 1,400 who died in al-Assad's alleged use of gas.
Sincerely,
Bob Scroggins
New Milford, PA