tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13593902.post5128492718235290752..comments2024-02-11T09:55:50.468-08:00Comments on The Eastside View: Chemical weapons in SyriaCharles Sherehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10480432901356490235noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13593902.post-30943367860631547182013-09-07T20:36:10.610-07:002013-09-07T20:36:10.610-07:00"Surgical strikes" have come to be viewe..."Surgical strikes" have come to be viewed as the "clean, hygienic" alternative.<br /><br />We send drones over Pakistan--a nation with whom we are not at war--run remotely from basement bunkers in Virginia apparently. <br /><br />At the beginning of the Iraq war, and later, we watched in disbelief as our rockets took out private vehicles on empty roads, or whole city blocks in Baghdad. All very clean if you were sipping coffee in a basement in Virginia. Not so clean if you were under those explosions. <br /><br />There is no such thing as a surgical strike where chemical weaponry is involved. <br /><br />If we could simply walk in and load these drums into trucks, and drive them onto huge transport planes, we could as easily depose Assad himself. Isn't that the real purpose in all this hand-wringing?<br /><br />The moral point here is that the Geneva Convention protocols are not a pretext for the invasion of countries, or for any peremptory military action. <br /><br />These civil wars are very troubling. We can expect such conflicts throughout Asia, South America and the Near East for the next 100 years. Should we expect to engage our forces in all of them? If we don't, is it likely that China will instead? Right now, they seem content to let us do this, while they wrap up extractive contracts throughout the third world. They're really smart; they're beating us at our own game. <br /><br />Meanwhile, our government dithers. Curtis Favillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06213075853354387634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13593902.post-51748050140703247422013-08-30T03:10:33.050-07:002013-08-30T03:10:33.050-07:00This sounds like an admirable objective, but I wou...This sounds like an admirable objective, but I would add a few observations.<br /><br />(1) If it could be done at all, it could be done by the US acting alone. In this way, it could be done swiftly and secretly. For all we know, it's already the favoured plan. cf the assassination of Osama Bin Laden. <br /><br />(2) The doability of such a plan depends on accurate intelligence.<br /><br />(3) It might not be doable at all without major losses to the US forces involved<br /><br />(4) It might not be doable at all without significant loss of life to innocent Syrian civilians<br /><br />(5) the process of recovering or destroying <i>in situ</i> the chemical weapons might set them off, especially if they are booby-trapped.<br /><br />(6) the expedition might easily fail.<br /><br />But I'm sure you have thought all these things yourself.<br /><br />Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297306807695767580noreply@blogger.com