Syria

I'm having a busy Summer, so blogging has been nonexistent (sorry fans!), but the lurking Syria debacle, along with a slow day, has lured me back for a post.

This is outrageous.  President Obama drew a line in the sand, saying that use of chemical weapons was a "red line" that could not be crossed without consequences.  But it appears he didn't think about what consequences the US was prepared to mete out, and now Syrian President Assad has crossed the line and is thumbing his nose at the US.

Oops.  It turns out that a US bombing campaign would have no effect on the regime, which is already locked in a civil war.  And ground troops are out of the question, as very few Americans are willing to risk US lives for Syria.  We also saw how ground troops worked out in Iraq next door (wow, it turns out that Arabs hate us when we come in and occupy our country!)  Bombing hasn't worked out very well in the Muslim world (huh! Seems like Afghans don't like it when we bomb villages and kill women and children along with a few terrorists in the shack next door!)

But the President drew a line in the sand!  We have to do something or we'll appear weak! Think this through: in order to save face after an ill-advised statement months ago, the US should go on a bombing campaign, which will necessarily kill and maim hundreds or thousands of non-combatants, all for the ostensible purpose of protecting the Syrian people from their own government.  Meanwhile, that same Syrian government will barely feel the affects, and continue on their own killing spree.  Our "humanitarian mission" will very likely lead to more innocent Syrian deaths than doing nothing would.

But what about the flaunting of international law? Well, it turns out that Syria never signed the treaty banning chemical weapons, so technically they haven't broken any treaty obligation.  And few have pointed out that enormous irony that is the US punishing Syria for breaking international law by... breaking international law itself! There is simply no justification for attacking a country that has made no threats against us, when all the relevant world bodies (UN, NATO) have refused to approve any action.

The President is in a tough spot.  He promised to do something about Syria, and now it turns out that there's nothing he can do except make empty gestures.  He is indeed going to look weak.

But that's not a reason to bomb.  You don't save face at the expense of killing hundreds of innocent people.  A president who does that has crossed a very serious ethical line.

Some other thoughts:

• What's the moral difference between chemical weapons and conventional weapons?  Cluster bombs kill just as many people at the target, with shrapnel instead of sarin.  The victims are just as dead.  Yes, we're appalled by chemical weapons, but they're not the same as nukes, which potentially can kill many many more people.  The issue is the targeting of civilians, which Assad was already doing before this attack, and which other tyrants are doing all over the world.
• Asking for congressional approval is a much better solution than just bombing away, and I like forcing the legislative branch to go on record rather than just carp from the sidelines.  But in the end they're probably going to vote in favor of a campaign, and the administration still will bear responsibility for leading us into another mess.