I would be lying if I said I didn't feel vindicated - the incentive to escalate the conflict via use of chemical weapons was on the side of the Syrian rebel forces, and not on the Assad regime. Restive Syrian armed forces commanders might have been responsible, but I imagine that chemical weapons are easily controlled and the higher command would be on their case about this.
Honestly - this is not going to sound fair and balanced, but the US-NATO response to the Syrian ruckus is more about great power gaming than chemical weapons. More about kicking a Russian ally when he is down than censuring a state for crossing a moral event horizon.
Use of chemical weapons has always been a taboo, but worth invading over? Unfortunately the last example of a state using chemical/biological weapons against an enemy was Saddam's Iraq, which was in a whole different era.
Perhaps looking at the history of "responsibility to protect", R2P, may prove instructive, in a pinch. In a huge pinch, I'd say.
No comments:
Post a Comment