11 September 2013

On the Syria non-strike arguments

Just read what Terry Glavin had to say on Facebook today about tons of arguments that support the other point of view (the one what says that the strike on Syria will be useless):

What makes this different than 99 per cent of the anti-interventionist drivel making the rounds is that it isn't drivel, but is rather an argument that is serious and intelligent: "The issue hinges on whether one believes a pointless and ill-considered strike by this president against the Syrian regime does more or less damage than a congressional 'no' vote that would make America even more of a non-entity in international affairs." What an epic cock-up this whole thing has been...
Terry offers this Commentary article as an example.

Confusing? You bet. I fully agree that there are a myriad perfect reasons why not to strike Syria. I consider that there is one compelling reason to eradicate Assad and his clique, but...

Anyway, here is another good reason to leave Syria alone.
By the 1980s, the report stated, the Syrian regime had begun storing chemical stockpiles in 50 different towns throughout the country. In case the army is in need of the arsenal, aerial bombs, artillery shells and ballistic missiles and rockets have already been prepared in advance.
The sarin and VX gases, according to the report, is manufactured in five different locations throughout Syria: The main facility in Al-Safir, and the others in Homs, Latakia, Hama and Palmyra. The poisonous gas is transferred to storage facilities at Al Furqus, Dumayr, Khan Abu Shamat as well as in the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center in Damascus.
Different reports show that the Damascus center, which is under Assad's direct control, also houses biological weapons.
Now, did I say that the story told in this article provides a good reason to leave Syria alone or that it provides an even better reason to get busy with burning all these stockpiles down and darn the consequences?

Confusing, innit?

Hat tip: Shira.


SnoopyTheGoon said...

To burn them all down with anything approaching effectiveness would require troops on the ground and their long supply tail. In other words, not just throwing a few cruise missiles into the desert, but all-out war. Ain't gonna happen, McGee.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

I know. There is a medium that could provide high enough temperature to burn the chemicals to atoms... but I am not all that eager for that measure.