Deterrence of Syria’s Chemical Weapons’ Without War


I think the Obama administration is afflicted in part with the latest version of Rice-state sponsored murder: Former Secretary of State Condoleezza who was a chief advocate for the criminal, Nazi invasion of Iraq, and now Susan Rice, national security advisor, who lied about the conditions that led to the Benghazi, Libya murder of the US ambassador and others. Yet the Obama administration has succeeded if not politically certainly substantively in its putative objectives to deter future chemical weapons in the two-year Syrian conflagration. It claims it needs to bomb Syria to deter further acts of alleged violations of the Geneva Protocol and the Chemical Weapons Convention. It has, I believe. I doubt even if the Congress were to register its disapproval of the latest twenty-first century war of hate and racism, that Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad would use chemical weapons again. That assumes he has already.

The global preoocupation with whether the US will go to war against Syria as retaliation is probably adequate enough to convince the Syrian leader that additional use of the banned weapons would not lead to inaction but possibly unilateral action: unilateral in terms of national state power: the US; or unilateral in terms of domestic decision making, the president contravenes a vote of Congress or simply does not ask for one in a future response to an additional use of CW. Of course the Obama administration does not know whether deterrence has been successful. I would argue if the UN inspectors’ report does reveal sarin, mustard or some other awful nerve agent, that Dr Assad will not be able to convincingly claim that he is being set up or that the insurrection was responsible for the use of CW in a Damascus suburb.

Aside from the immoral and illegal plan for military retaliation, I think deterrence has worked and will work given the international attention to the US threat to actively engage itself in the latest Middle East war.

Yet what about depleted uranium, cluster bombs and white phosphorous that the US and Israel have used? Legal, maybe, moral, NO! Hmmm. The US does not have the moral voice of leadership–remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki–to arrogate to itself a global role in policing the use of “bad weapons” in war. It is risible. It’s not the weapons but the wars that must stop!

This entry was posted in External Affairs. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply