I'm dismayed by recent rhetoric of Pres. Obama, Sec. of State Kerry, and Sec. of Defense Hagel justifying military intervention in Syria's civil war. After firmly criticizing the invasion of Iraq (then-senator Obama actually voted against giving authority for it), it is surreal to hear Hagel and the president speaking vaguely about "threats to American interests" and "building an international coalition" against the Syrian government. Although Prime Minister Cameron wants to join the US, yesterday the British parliament voted to stay out of it, reflecting public opinion there. A solid majority here are also against intervention, but Pres. Obama won't ask our lawmakers to vote. He used to say he would never unilaterally go to war like Pres. Bush did. Why the change of heart?
I stumbled on this map from Der Speigel of presumed chemical weapons facilities in Syria. Someone recently deployed some of them to devastating effect in the country, which the Obama administration is blaming on the government and promoting as a humanitarian reason to bomb targets there. I don't believe for a minute that's the reason.
But this map made me see for the first time how widely distributed and close to borders the materials may be. With a civil war raging and so many people on the move, I imagine equipment and chemical stock could easily become unsecured. I'm sure lots of criminal and terrorist organizations would love to scoop up some of those bad boys. Isreal is certainly worried about it. Could this be the real reason the US government wants to attack Syria?
And if so, why not just say that?
No comments:
Post a Comment