I have abandoned this blog for nearly two years due to other needs, projects and concerns, but the current drumbeats for war, despite our Secretary of State's attempt to insist that us attacking another nation isn't war (it is) have me very concerned. I abhor the use of chemical weapons . . . I abhor the use of bombs, bullets and land mines, too. I do not see how the the deaths of those who died of "conventional weapons" are any less important or any less horrible than the deaths of those who die from sarin gas.
I can't pretend to "know" anything, partly because I don't trust either the news media or the politicians or the president when it comes to all they are saying about Syria. I DO know that I find it horrible that they keep talking about the 400 children killed by sarin as though THEIR lives are important, but the far greater numbers killed by "conventional" weapons weren't worth intervention?
I am NOT for intervention, as much as I would like to see the killing stopped. I just don't think we are going to stop it by more killing. Just because the initial warning action doesn't mean boots on the ground doesn't mean we know what will transpire after that. Presumably Assad wouldn't just take a US attack without some response. The repeated assertion that we won't have boots on the ground also sounds as though we only think it's the lives of OUR soldiers that matter. And what about the many unknown possibilities? What if OUR bombs kill women and children in the densely populated areas? What if our bombs release the chemicals?
What if it isn't Assad's government that used the sarin? Who would have had the most to gain by using it? He knew he would be risking some kind of retribution if he did. He was already winning, at least in terms of cities and territory controlled. Why risk bringing down the might of the United States upon him? What if the rebels used it to try to gain territory? What if they used it to try to get the USA and other countries to intervene and get rid of Assad for them? Is it true, as was said by a former NSC staffer on television the other day, that the sarin used was "homemade" and not "weapons grade"? If so, why is that? Why would Assad be using homemade sarin instead of the more effective weapons grade?
What if al Qaeda is experimenting with sarin in this situation and perfecting their use of it so they can use it elsewhere? Wouldn't this be a good subterfuge in which they could blame it on Assad?
We did not intervene in WWII because we knew Jews were being gassed by the millions. We entered that war because we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. We stood by when Saddam Hussein used chemical warfare, mustard gas and sarin, against Iranian troops and against the Kurds in his own country. We only went to war with him when he crossed into Kuwait and tried to take it over and the use of chemical weapons was not the justification. Obama's contention that we have not allowed it since WWI is wrong. The USA owns chemical weapons. Let's hope we never use them. And let's hope we don't intervene in the Syrian Civil War.
