War drums #2

Now that I vented my dislike of Donald Rumsfeld for his hypocrisy in saying we have no justification for a military strike on Syria, let me say that I tend to agree with those who oppose attacking Syria.    

At least not without backing from at least two of the following:  (1) the U.N., (2) the U. S. Congress, (3) the Arab League, (4) NATO, or (5) the British government.  At this point none of the above has given approval.

Yes, use of chemical weapons is despicable.    Yes, there need to be consequences that say the world will not tolerate such.

But, if our government has actual proof -- as opposed to conjecture -- that the Assad regime was the one who used chemicals, we have not been given any evidence.

The next big question is:   what would it accomplish, other than symbolic?    Might Assad simply retaliate by increasing the use of chemicals to show us we can't dictate to him?   Might Hezbollah step up its terrorist attacks on us and our allies in the Middle East?   Would Iran take up the cause and further complicate our attempt to rein in their nuclear program?  And what would we do then?

In short, what are the possible consequences weighted against the possible benefits?  At this point, I would keep trying for support from any and all of the above.   Just as I write this, the British parliament has voted down support for Prime Minister David Cameron's non-binding request to join the U.S. in military strikes.   The Arab League is said to be opposed.  There is strong opposition in our own Congress (but also strong support).   NATO has not taken a position.   It's assumed the both Russia and China would veto any proposal to the U.N. Security Council.

So where does this leave us?   Go-alone-cowboy is Cheney-Rumsfeld-Bush style, not Obama.  But can he justify not acting in face of the humanitarian crisis?    He will be criticized politically no matter which choice he makes.

Ralph