Much ink and countless computer pixels are being devoted to Syria’s, we believe, gassing of its own citizens and what the response of the United States should be. We all have an opinion, but each of us would do well to be cognizant of the other side. My own opinion will be presented later in a separate piece. But for now an interesting point/counterpoint has been written by George Parker for the New Yorker. It’s an easy read and worth your time, I believe. Here are a few excerpts:
So it looks like we’re going to bomb Assad.
Really? Why good?
Did you see the videos of those kids? I heard that ten thousand people were gassed. Hundreds of them died. This time, we have to do something.
I want you to explain what we’re going to achieve by bombing.
We’re going to let Assad know that chemical weapons are over the line. There’s a reason they’ve been illegal since Verdun or whenever.
Except when Saddam used them against the Kurds—we knew, and we didn’t say a word.
Is that a reason to let Assad use them against his people?
You can’t bomb targets on one side of a civil war without helping the other side.
It would be very temporary. We’d send Assad a clear message, and then we’d step back and let them go on fighting. We’re not getting involved any deeper than that…
The rebels are a bunch of infighting, disorganized, jihadist thugs, and we can’t trust any of them.
Read it all here .
Contributor, aka tidbits. Retired attorney in complex litigation, death penalty defense and constitutional law. Former Nat’l Board Chair: Alzheimer’s Association. Served on multiple political campaigns, including two for U.S. Senator Mark O. Hatfield (R-OR). Contributing author to three legal books and multiple legal publications.