I have no doubt about the sincerity behind Secretary of State John Kerry’s harsh words for the Syrian government and the “undeniable” evidence of their use of chemical weapons. If that is true, clearly it’s a crime against humanity; chemical warfare is specifically outlawed by every decent nation and it is the mark of a regime that doesn’t deserve to be in power. (It would be even easier to be outraged if it wasn’t for the fact that when it comes to the condemnation of the use of chemical weapons, our hands haven’t been exactly clean.)
Be that as it may and repeating a question I asked last week, what are we going to do about it?
The suggestions include a limited surgical strike, such as dropping a couple of Cruise missiles on the Syrian command and control center or wherever the Pentagon thinks the Syrians are running their civil war from. But if this is a regime that has no qualms about gassing civilians right under the noses of the U.N., they won’t be phased by some bombs on the roof; they’ve probably already factored that in and are somewhere where the only people who will get killed are civilians.
We have learned over the last sixty years or so that there is no such thing as a “limited war.” It’s like being a little bit pregnant. No, I think we’re in this all the way.
I would love to be proven wrong.