The gassing of Syrians by their fellow countrymen will rank among the great atrocities of the 21st century.
However, beyond a stern verbal condemnation, is it all that wise for the United States to get involved at this point?
Do we really know for certain who is the responsible party?
This conflict is not Star Wars or Lord of The Rings with clearly discernible protagonists and adversaries.
Either side could be capable of doing such a thing.
On the one hand, you have a brutal dictatorship. On the other side, the so-called “freedom fighters” have been accused of cannibalism and granting of a religious dispensation allowing for the raping of women caught up in the conflict.
Most importantly, if the Obama Administration decides to get involved militarily, does the President have the resolve to do what must be done?
For example, what if a campaign to eliminate Syrian weapons of mass destruction is conducted half-heartedly in the manner in which the President undertakes so many of his policy initiatives and America returns home before the task is completed?
Since whoever is responsible has no qualms about about killing their own people systematically and in the most horrible manners imaginable, what would prevent them from doing so to the people of the United States?
The border is pretty much a siv and, if Assad is indeed responsible as Obama is insisting to the civilized world, the President has already announced his intentions to allow that particular Middle Eastern tyrant to remain in power where the ensconced despot can plot revenge at leisure.
By Frederick Meekins