Will someone please explain to me why it is more abhorrent to kill 1,400 civilians with poison gas than it is to kill 100,000 civilians with rockets, bombs or bullets?
The Syrian government has killed more than 100,000 of its citizens over a two-year period, and we just deplored it and ignored it. But one day, it used poison gas to kill 1,400 people, and our government goes bonkers.
A decision is now being made over what, if any, kind of military response is appropriate. For what? To cause the Syrian government to fall to the rebels or to punish the Syrian government so harshly that they will never even think about using such weapons again? No, our response is to be "limited," so that it will not give either side in the civil war any advantage because we do not want either side to win. And to what national security threat are we responding?
Maybe these rogue nations will know that when we draw a "red line," they better pay attention. Does this rationale really make any sense? What do we do if Syria just uses poison gas again -- and again? Make some more "limited responses"? And then, there is the question of Russia. What will Russia do if our "limited response" kills some of its citizens in Syria? Won't they at least be a bit miffed?
Never miss a local story.