Saturday, September 7, 2013

My Take on Syria

Well I haven't written anything in a while, but I do still pay attention to everything that is going on. Even the fact that those who think like me are opposed to taking action in Syria. That is my knee-jerk reaction too, and no small part of that is the fact that it is something Obama supports. So naturally it must be bad.

It is bad, but so is not doing anything. There is a reason why nations are hesitant about using certain types of weapons. It is because they are banned, and that ban is only as good as the force to back it up. Kind of like when you tell your kid to clean up his room. He won't if he knows nothing will happen if he doesn't. Spare the rod, spoil the dictator.

Harkening to WD's video, Assad has whacked some 100,000 people. Ok, some of those casualties came at the hands of the rebels too...a bunch of various and sometimes opposing groups who have who-knows-what intentions. Some of them as has been proven, are very bad. Some of them are people who want freedom from oppression. Either way, taking the side of the "rebels" altogether solves nothing. We really can't choose sides.

But someone used chemical weapons, and that has to be responded to. I know Obama is only trumpeting this Syria strike thing to shift attention off of his scandals and to save face...he doesn't care at all that such weapons were used. But either way, something must be done. As the days go by, more groups seems to be acknowledging that it was the Syrian military that used those weapons. Today the EU, one of the most useless but UN-like groups acknowledged it. These are guys who are afraid of their own shadows, much less going to war with anyone. So to me, that means whatever intel was shared with them might have merit.

As WD said...a few hundred people died from the attack. Yes, true, and conventional weapons can easily do that too, if less indiscriminately. Therein lies the rub. A toxic gas kills or injures every single person within which that gas concentrates. It is a type of weapon that was designed to kill indiscriminately, unlike artillery or small arms or missiles. And it is a horrible, lingering, inhumane death. You don't just get shot and die or blown get horribly sick and cannot breath, and it can take days to die.

Humanity decided a long time ago, following the world wars, that such weapons are not acceptable in warfare, because they are simply inhumane. And the nations said that if anyone uses them, it is a crime and it will be punished. And so there have been very few incidents of using them, even with the number of evil dictators that have existed since, because they knew the west would come take them out if they used that stuff.

So the problem is, if we do nothing, then that sends a signal to the worlds villains that they too can used such weapons and not have to worry. That is the one thing we cannot afford.

But what to do? What kind of strike would actually send a message as well as accomplish something? We don't want a full on war with Assad because we don't particularly want to support the rebels. Both, in my estimation, are bad guys. See, there is no clear answer to this problem. I'd say strike if we have meaningful targets. But just throwing bombs around like a giant world super power toddler throwing a hissy fit won't mean much.

I would propose finding out where these weapons are stored, and then striking those points all at once and then calling it a day. And that would probably take some time to find out where all those are, so a little patience won't hurt.

The one thing that worries me though...Britain is not behind us, but France is. It's a strange world now.


  1. i may be the last one left standing who hasn't decided. i want to know our strategic goal. out- rage is not a strategy, nor is "sending a message".

    as for bombing the storage points and calling it a day, there are serious people who feel that that would release massive amounts of gas, giving the worst of both worlds. bombing with a massive attack of HE and incendiaries might do it. or nukes. but a few cruise missiles with 1100 lbs of HE probably is not the answer.

  2. Thanks for that, Keln. This issue has baffled me.

    It's nice to see you're writing again :)

  3. The idea that some methods of slaughter are more humane than others is beyond laughable. Having your legs blown off in a "conventional" missile attack is no more humane than slowly suffocating from a poisonous gas. I saw pictures on Friday of Syrian rebels sawing off a teenager's head with something shy of a Bowie knife. That is inhumane or the word has no meaning, yet those rebels are who we would ostensibly be supporting with a military strike (regardless of however "unbelievably small" it might be).

    We have no business in Syria, just as Syria would have no business in an American civil war. The rest of the world's opinion about who did what to who with what weapons are irrelevant. Russia has actually made a convincing argument that it was the Syrian rebels who used gas, as the gas involved was likely from decades-old storage and the delivery method was crude, something like an IED. Certainly not modern military-grade ordinance. Even that is neither here nor there, as I do not trust Russia anymore than I trust France or Britain.

    In short, is not our job to make sure every little petty, piece of crap dictator is playing by some asinine set of rules when they kill their citizenry. "You can bomb the everloving hell out of them, as long as you use approved weapons from Appendix A, attached herein." It's both a silly and disgusting idea.

    The only use for American military power is to defend the United States. Not its interests, solely its people and its land. You touch an American or expend a single shell towards us, and you visit the afterlife immediately. That is all.