Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Chemical Weapons Attack In Syria

Reports of a chemical weapons attack that has, at the latest tally, killed 16 Syrian soldiers and dozen or so civilians. Both the regime and the rebels are denying that they were responsible and claiming it was the other.  The US State department says there is little evidence that the rebels did the attack, while the Russians say they did. Frankly, I have no idea who is responsible as I could see both the regime and the more zealous rebel factions using chemical weapons. 

This puts the US in a tough bind as the government claimed that chemical weapons represented a red line in which we would presumably intervene afterwards, however, this was just rhetoric from the president. Whether or not the US actually intervenes is another story, while the US would certainly like to see Syria be moved away from Iran, the fact is that the current situation is perfectly acceptable to America in the geopolitical sense.  What we will probably see is more open, rather than covert, support. But I still doubt we will see US military involvement, though I have little hard evidence to support such a statement, it is just a gut feeling.

As for who is actually responsible? Well, it either could be a false flag operation by the rebels or Assad is gambling that the US, specifically Obama, was just rattling its saber. The war has been going on for two years now, and without western intervention, will probably continue for another two the way things are going.  My vote is that the US does nothing, as much as I don't like Assad's regime I also don't trust the rebels. They are not a cohesive entity and we don't need another Libya in the Mediterranean

1 comment:

  1. I think I know who did it. The answer is in the question "cui bono?" Not the Syrian government.

    Name the regimes that have unleashed chemical weapons at their disposal when faced with impending overthrow. I can't think of one. Csarist Russia was the first to face this dilemma, and it didn't. Germany gassed its Jews but never used chemical weapons on the battlefield, even during its death throes. Japan gassed the Chinese but even that suicidal bunch never gassed the invading American forces. Chemical weapons are generally used as a side arsenal when it can employ them with relative confidence, not last resort weapon. Same with Saddam's gassing of the Kurds...he never employed chemical weapons against US forces during the first Gulf war.

    This was a rebel assault, designed to spark mass outrage against Assad and political pressure on the rest of the world.


Disagreements and countervailing views are welcome, however, comments will be deleted if:

-They have emoticons.
-If it is obvious that you have not read the post.
-Obvious Spam, and it takes me about a quarter second to determine if it is spam since you all write your comments the same way.

About Me

My photo
Seattle resident whose real name is Kevin Daniels. This blog covers the following topics, libertarian philosophy, realpolitik, western culture, history and the pursuit of truth from the perspective of a libertarian traditionalist.