President Barack Obama says Syria’s decision to use chemical weapons requires a military response. Photo: Handout.
President Barack Obama announces Saturday America will attack Syria for using chemical weapons
Syria has crossed President Obama’s “red line” by using chemical weapons against its own people, now the United States is preparing for war. Why was there a line in the first place? And what should Canada do?
Obama said a year ago that if Syria used chemical weapons “that that’s a red line for us” and it “would change my calculations significantly.”
Syrians suffering from nerve gas following an attack by the Syrian government. Photo: The Australian News.
Chemical weapons were outlawed by the international community after Word War I because of their inherent cruelty and potential for widespread loss of life.
Well, Saturday afternoon Obama responded with a major statement on Syria. He called the nerve gas attack an “assault on human dignity” and said it represents a threat to American national security, which seems to be the boilerplate justification for any foreign policy adventures by the US.
“Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets,” he said. “I’m confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior, and degrade their capacity to carry it out.”
A handout image released by the Syrian opposition’s Shaam News Network on August 23 shows a relative weaping over the boody of one of his family members killed during what Syrian rebels claim to be a toxic gas attack by pro-government forces in eastern Ghouta earlier in the week, during their funeral on the outskirts of Damascus – AFP
The President stressed that military action would not include boots on the ground nor would it be open-ended.
Putting aside for a moment the grisly images of shroud-covered dead children, why is it imperative that America, and potentially some of its currently reluctant allies like the UK and Canada, go to war?
Is it the horrific nature of the crime?
Death from sarin, reportedly the nerve gas used in the Syrian attacks, is gruesome. Victims can’t breathe, they lose control over their bodily functions, defecating and twitching, and within a matter of minutes (depending on the dose) they die of respiratory failure.
As monstrous as is death by nerve gas, death by bomb isn’t a picnic, either. Although no one has been able to come up with accurate numbers thus far, partly because the CIA fudges the numbers, since 2004 America drone strikes in Pakistan have killed hundreds and probably thousands of civilians, many of them children.
Obama doesn’t have a moral leg to stand on: A dead child is no less dead after being poisoned or blown up.
Is it the number of innocents killed?
As of June, more than 100,000 Syrians have been killed during the civil war, about half of them civilians and presumably a large number of those were children.
Why weren’t those numbers enough to prompt a response from the White House?
And why is military intervention the go to response? What happened to sanctions, economic blockades and good old-fashioned diplomacy?
Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird. Photo: Handout.
Thus far, Canada has avoided becoming caught up in the war talk from south of the border. Friday, Foreign Minister John Baird repeated Canada’s condemnation of the Syrian nerve gas attack and called for a “a firm and unequivocal response” to deter any future use of chemical weapons.
While he said Canada fully supports Obama’s efforts, “the Prime Minister made very clear yesterday that the Government of Canada has no plans at this time for a Canadian military mission…”
Stephen Harper knows there is little appetite to commit Canada’s military to a Syrian operation.
Beacon News readers are firmly against intervention:
Greg Johnston, Calgary: “I think it would be fun to think of what the world might be like if the US didn’t feel the need to tinker in every other country’s affairs… maybe even dealt with with some of the serious issues they have at home.”
Tim McKay: “We’ve sat by and let African genocide go unabated for the 37 years I’ve been on this planet.
What about that? If we’re going to take a stand, we should do it more consistently and not just when the USA is or isn’t involved.”
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, bottom right, participates in a round of target practice with members of the Canadian Rangers. Photo: Government of Canada.
Roger Leeder, Calgary: “The last thing Canada should do is follow the US into another drawn out, illegal war. The US has lost the moral authority to lead, let alone to police the world, when they are out there oppressing the world daily.”
Dave Noelle, Medicine Hat: “Tough call. My biggest concern is that even if the military strikes remove the Syrian government, how will things improve? The militant Islamic rebels will be a better government with more honourable human rights protection? Not likely! It seems wrong to stand and watch a government murder innocents, but it seems pointless to intervene when it may just mean an even more draconian regime comes to power.”
Judging by Beacon readers, Canadians are rightfully leery of entanglements in unstable Middle Eastern countries and think the West should take a long pause before plunging into another military escapade with disastrous consequences.
President Obama says he intends to seek Congressional approval for military action against Syria. Perhaps Harper, instead of genuflecting before the Americans, could could take advantage of that time to propose a non-military solution for the Syrian crisis.
Brokering solutions to foreign spats used to be something Canada did quite well (think Lester Pearson and the Suez Canal).
Is it too late for Canada to go back to the future?
Tell us what you think of the Canadian oil sands by filling out this brief survey. $2 will be donated to breast cancer research for every completed survey.