No Lack of Weapons in Syria
The decision to deliver American weapons to the Syrian insurgents is a poor one. U.S. President Obama is beginning to involve the U.S. in a conflict that can no longer be controlled.
In 2003, then U.S. President George W. Bush justified the invasion of Iraq with a lie. The weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein was allegedly stockpiling were never found. Bush simply wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
Ten years later, the U.S. government is justifying their planned delivery of weapons to the Syrian insurgents with a comparable motive. Assad’s troops have used poisonous gas. Again, critics in the U.S. are already questioning the administration’s honesty.
However, this criticism could be premature. Doubts are appropriate, primarily because U.S. knowledge stems from the intelligence community. But there are two crucial points why the situation might be different today: First, it is proven that the Syrian army has chemical weapons at their disposal — which was not the case in Iraq. Second, it would be stupid if U.S. President Barack Obama were to repeat the mistake of his predecessor, and Obama is not stupid.
That has nothing to do with whether the decision to deliver U.S. weapons is right. It is not. There is not a lack of weapons; there is a lack of willingness to find a political solution. Obama is beginning to involve the U.S. in a conflict that can no longer be controlled. It seems as though the administration’s plan may not be a smart one at all.
In 2003, then U.S. President George W. Bush justified the invasion of Iraq with a lie. The weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein was allegedly stockpiling were never found. Bush simply wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
Ten years later, the U.S. government is justifying their planned delivery of weapons to the Syrian insurgents with a comparable motive. Assad’s troops have used poisonous gas. Again, critics in the U.S. are already questioning the administration’s honesty.
However, this criticism could be premature. Doubts are appropriate, primarily because U.S. knowledge stems from the intelligence community. But there are two crucial points why the situation might be different today: First, it is proven that the Syrian army has chemical weapons at their disposal — which was not the case in Iraq. Second, it would be stupid if U.S. President Barack Obama were to repeat the mistake of his predecessor, and Obama is not stupid.
That has nothing to do with whether the decision to deliver U.S. weapons is right. It is not. There is not a lack of weapons; there is a lack of willingness to find a political solution. Obama is beginning to involve the U.S. in a conflict that can no longer be controlled. It seems as though the administration’s plan may not be a smart one at all.