So President Obama wants to strike Assad for using chemical weapons on his own people.
But President Obama doesn't want to strike hard enough to really hurt Assad's ability to defend his regime.
No, President Obama instead wants to pressure Assad into negotiating an end to the civil war.
Presumably, that chemical arsenal may come up. If we're willing to attack because of its use, I assume we'll want Assad to give them up.
My question is why would Assad give up chemical weapons?
Didn't the Libya War teach Assad that an Arab despot who voluntarily gives up his WMD programs can be attacked years later by the country he made a deal with, driven from his palace, and shot dead by enraged insurgents?
Didn't President Obama teach despots to remain WMD-armed despots fighting to the bitter end for victory rather than make a deal with America?
Breathe in the smart diplomacy! It smells like ... blood and idiocy.
UPDATE: Not that this is a defense of Khadaffi. Well before the war he was showing signs of flipping back. Who you want to blame for that can add or subtract from the blood and idiocy, I suppose.
About Me
- Brian J. Dunn
- I live and write in Ann Arbor, Michigan. University of Michigan AB and MA from Eastern Michigan University. One term in the Michigan Army National Guard. Former American history instructor and retired nonpartisan research analyst. I write on Blogger and Substack. Various military and private journals have published my occasional articles on military subjects. See "My Published Works" on the TDR web version or under the mobile version drop-down menu for citations and links.
