I don't really understand why chemical weapons are considered so much worse than other weapons. Yes, it's terrible that the Syrian government apparently killed a few hundred people with them; but they've killed a lot more with artillery, rockets, machine guns, bombs, or just by rounding them up and torturing them to death.
Nuclear and biological weapons are extremely dangerous, and can extend a long way in time and space from where they're used. But chemical weapons (at least these ones) degrade so quickly that we needed to get inspectors on the ground quickly before the evidence became undetectable, never mind dangerous. Land mines and cluster bombs, on the other hand, kill people decades after they're used.
So now that Syria has crossed the "red line", what do we do? And why did the Syrian regime do it anyway? They seemed to be winning thanks to the latest help from their neighbours.
Here is my theory (which is mine). Assad believes that the US will not invade Syria. It is war-weary from Iraq and Afghanistan, there's no strategic interest there, and it would annoy Russia and China. He doesn't even expect a Libyan-style air campaign, and the vote against it in Britain makes that even less likely. So he uses chemical weapons - if there's no response, he's got one more threat in his arsenal to use against the rebels. If the US attacks, he loses a few installations and perhaps some air defences, but he changes the war from Alawites versus Sunnis, into Arabs versus America. Not completely of course, but it gets him more enthusiastic backing from Iran, Russia, China and all the local non-Sunnis; and less enthusiastic opposition from Sunnis.
And this is partly a war of PR. Killing off all of his opponents is a big job that may be beyond him, but convincing them to back the devil they know would mean he didn't have to.
What should we do? Refuse to take the bait, and walk away from the Red Line? Or stick a limb into the blender that is Syria? It's a tough choice, and much more complicated because of US history in the region, particularly with Iraq.
I have another idea. If we're going to spend money and risk planes and pilots dropping things on Syria, why not instead air-drop chemical warfare suits and gas masks into the rebel areas? It makes a very deliberate point, and it only hurts the regime if they were actually planning to use chemical weapons. It sends a message without adding more weapons or violence to an area which has too much of both already. And it's much less likely to result in US pilots killing Arab civilians.
It's not what will happen, though.
Nuclear and biological weapons are extremely dangerous, and can extend a long way in time and space from where they're used. But chemical weapons (at least these ones) degrade so quickly that we needed to get inspectors on the ground quickly before the evidence became undetectable, never mind dangerous. Land mines and cluster bombs, on the other hand, kill people decades after they're used.
So now that Syria has crossed the "red line", what do we do? And why did the Syrian regime do it anyway? They seemed to be winning thanks to the latest help from their neighbours.
Here is my theory (which is mine). Assad believes that the US will not invade Syria. It is war-weary from Iraq and Afghanistan, there's no strategic interest there, and it would annoy Russia and China. He doesn't even expect a Libyan-style air campaign, and the vote against it in Britain makes that even less likely. So he uses chemical weapons - if there's no response, he's got one more threat in his arsenal to use against the rebels. If the US attacks, he loses a few installations and perhaps some air defences, but he changes the war from Alawites versus Sunnis, into Arabs versus America. Not completely of course, but it gets him more enthusiastic backing from Iran, Russia, China and all the local non-Sunnis; and less enthusiastic opposition from Sunnis.
And this is partly a war of PR. Killing off all of his opponents is a big job that may be beyond him, but convincing them to back the devil they know would mean he didn't have to.
What should we do? Refuse to take the bait, and walk away from the Red Line? Or stick a limb into the blender that is Syria? It's a tough choice, and much more complicated because of US history in the region, particularly with Iraq.
I have another idea. If we're going to spend money and risk planes and pilots dropping things on Syria, why not instead air-drop chemical warfare suits and gas masks into the rebel areas? It makes a very deliberate point, and it only hurts the regime if they were actually planning to use chemical weapons. It sends a message without adding more weapons or violence to an area which has too much of both already. And it's much less likely to result in US pilots killing Arab civilians.
It's not what will happen, though.
No comments:
Post a Comment