|First Benghazi , and Syria blunder .|
As fears grow in the West that Syrian President Bashar Assad will unleash chemical weapons as an act of desperation, NATO moved forward Thursday with its plan to place Patriot missiles and troops along Syria's border with Turkey to protect against potential attacks. In Washington, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said intelligence reports raise fears that an increasingly desperate Syrian President Bashar Assad is considering using his chemical weapons arsenal -- which the U.S. and Russia agree is unacceptable. It was unclear whether he might target rebels within Syria or bordering countries, but growing concern over such a scenario was clearly adding urgency to discussions an ocean away in Ireland's capital.Well, let's look at things from Assad's perspective. Start by looking at what happened to Gaddafi. No consolation prize for going quietly. In Gaddafi's case, the revolution started shortly after the chemical weapons were gone. In Assad's case, it reportedly happened before. Perhaps a mistake, perhaps not.Assad may be the protector of a few minorities destined to be designated victims if the rebels win, although I'm not claiming he's an angel. I really haven't studied the recent history of the Middle East. There are probably a few Christians that think they may have more problems under Morsi than under Mubarruk. Israel might have been a little more comfortable about 4 years ago. Law abiding civilians don't overthrow national governments, at least not in the US. Anybody tried recently? And probably not in Russia. In Africa, maybe--Africa seems to be a little different that way. I'm not sure the Arabs want to be like the Africans.To the credit of the Egyptians (especially Mubarruk), there was no bloodbath. At least not yet.What makes chemical (and nuclear) weapons wrong? If they are wrong, how does this impact the military strategies of (most importantly) the US and Russia? For the last 65 years. And to a much lesser extent a few other countries. How does this influence relations with Iran and North Korea?And the question that has been dogging the US for the last 12 years. "Exactly who is a civilian?" The Russians seem to have had a little trouble in Afghanistan . It seems to me that the Whitewash of the Iraqi convoy movement into Syria back in 2003 just before the invasion has now backfired. It seems that is how Syria now has it's chemical weapons. So no WMD's in Iraq, but Syria has them....I find this very, very disturbing! I also think regardless of Assad's usage (which would be a crime against humanity) these NBC weapons should be taken from his nasty hands, also which stops any extremists from obtaining them. Media you are to blame as much as anyone for Whitewashing that convoy movment into Syria, and the blood of those innocent people who will possibly be so horribly killed is on your hands as well if that happens.
NOTES & COMMENTS:
Even worse, I’m convinced the refusal of Syria’s Bashar Hafez al-Assad to give up power was solidified by the events in Libya. No doubt the murder of Gadhafi gave him pause, but more important, Assad observed the U.S. and our allies refusing to commit troops to back up their words. Under these circumstances any dictator in his right mind would choose to hold on to power as long as possible, regardless of the cost in civilian lives.Given his family history, I’ve never considered Assad a reformer, but before the uprising he wasn’t as brutal as Saddam Hussein had been. The administration’s call for Assad’s removal was a huge mistake because it gave him every reason to defiantly stay on, and the Western powers every reason to get rid of him.But who will replace Assad? If the anti-Assad allies can’t find an element among the opposition to trust with arms, who could we trust in a post-Assad regime with a military arsenal that includes chemical weapons? Such are the perils of Obama’s consensus-driven foreign policy.