Ben K.
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 2, 2010
- Messages
- 4,717
- Reaction score
- 1,981
- Location
- Dublin, Ireland
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Pete,
I'm suggesting that what the UN does or, in the case, fails to do, will not stop the U.S., UK, France, and some others from carrying out military action. Such action appears increasingly likely and imminent. Given the pace of consultations, it would not surprise me if the operation's timing is a matter of days rather than a matter of weeks away.
I don't support such action. We are in agreement that even as there is abundant evidence of a chemical weapons attack, the evidence as to whom was responsible is lacking, and cases can be made for others aside from the Assad government bearing responsibility. I am wary of undertaking a military response in the face of what appears to be incomplete evidence.
In the U.S., much was made about the Bush Administration's rush into Iraq before there was evidence that it had reconstituted a WMD program. Post-war, it was found that it had not. Now, it appears that the U.S. is poised to launch another military operation in the face of incomplete evidence and significant uncertainty.
Personally, I don't see the need for a rush. One can wait for the evidence. Waiting entails no substantial costs. If credible and convincing evidence becomes available that the Assad dictatorship were responsible, then some kind of strikes against that government's chemical infrastructure (probably production and delivery chain, but not storage facilities given environmental and health risks) would not be unreasonable. Instead, there seems to be no appetite for patience and no willingness to make an evidence-based decision. Moreover, some news reports have suggested that the military response would be aimed at degrading the Assad government's air power (its overriding competitive advantage in the sectarian conflict), hinting at perhaps an implicit downpayment toward regime change.
P.S. It appears that the British Parliament is putting the brakes on military participation by the UK. Some are looking to make any operation contingent on the findings of the UN team. It would be nice if the U.S. Congress were similarly invested in trying to push the U.S. toward a response tied to the evidence.
BBC News - Syria crisis: MPs to vote twice before direct UK action
I'm interested in what credible and convincing evidence would be? What was presented on Iraq was credible and convincing at the time, there's nothing I can imagine being credible and convincing in todays "nothing is true" media on this issue.