sturtlovinggood says: Syria?
» SFB says: Of mixed mind on the issue other than to say, it sucks for everyone—particularly the people currently suffering and in fear within the country, who get lost in the mix whenever we hear about the drama between Russia and the U.S. I think the Obama administration, if they’re gonna make an issue of it, needs to look beyond chemical weapons and at the numerous violent incidents that have taken place over the past few years. I don’t like war, but Syria isn’t getting any better and the international community has to figure out some way to ease this situation without washing their hands of it. Last point: I think that Obama was right to ask for a vote in Congress. I hope he follows whatever guidance Capitol Hill has to offer. — Ernie @ SFB
While the world’s attention is on ensuring that Syria’s government can no longer use chemical weapons against its population, we shouldn’t forget that Syrian government forces have used conventional means to slaughter civilians. Survivors told us devastating stories of how their unarmed relatives were mowed down in front of them by government and pro-government forces.
Joe Stork, Human Rights Watch.
The other “red line.”
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has written an opinion piece in the New York Times, calling for caution in regards to Syria. In the piece, he writes:
The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism.
Read more of Putin’s piece at The New York Times.
Wait a second … this is just a David Brooks column with the wrong byline, isn’t it?
To me, the central question isn’t, “What are the risks of cruise missile strikes on Syria?” I grant that those risks are considerable, from errant missiles to Hezbollah retaliation. It’s this: “Are the risks greater if we launch missiles, or if we continue to sit on our hands?” Let’s be humble enough to acknowledge that we can’t be sure of the answer and that Syria will be bloody whatever we do. We Americans are often so self-absorbed as to think that what happens in Syria depends on us; in fact, it overwhelmingly depends on Syrians. Yet on balance, while I applaud the general reluctance to reach for the military toolbox, it seems to me that, in this case, the humanitarian and strategic risks of inaction are greater. We’re on a trajectory that leads to accelerating casualties, increasing regional instability, growing strength of Al Qaeda forces, and more chemical weapons usage.Nicholas Kristof says on Syria (via patrickdehahn)