SYRIA

Ok it's been a few weeks since my last post and it's definitely high time for me to weigh in on this Syria mess. Secretary of State Kerry, WTF man?

Allow me to put what I understand so far into context:

This bloody sectarian civil war has been waging for years with thousands of casualties, an unfortunate result of the Arab Spring. As many protested and fought for a better life, Syria's leader Bashar al Assad manipulated it into a civil war with rebels fighting rebels instead of uniting against him. A skillful execution of divide and conquer.

It's been reported that he perpetrated a chemical attack resulting in the deaths of over 1,400 non combatants including women and 426 young children. Babies man! Evidence of this attack has been accepted by not only the US but other nations like France and England while Russia and China notably have blocked efforts for a strike until the UN inspectors conclude their report. 

The situation is much more complicated, geo-politically with Syria being Russia's most valued customer for arms, other potential players watching to see the world's response to inform their own plans to employ chemical attacks and a rebel force in Syria comprised of many factions including Al-Qaida which I don't have to tell you is no good for the US or her allies in the region. 

So this is the gist and this is the justification that is being used to sell a limited strike to "degrade" Bashar al-Assad's ability to either break or to consider breaking this 100 year old moratorium on the use of these kinds of weapons.

This is FAR from the grim fairy tale spun by the Neo-cons under the Bush administration lead up to the longest and most costly war in recent memory, also known the Iraq war. No this is different because the justification wasn't manufactured. I accept the administration's account implicating Syria, although I don't understand WHY the US will not wait for UN confirmation which would no doubt solidify Global participation. I even agree that something MUST be done. The world cannot remain silent as despots redefine the nature of warfare in the infancy of this new millenia. If we do, in this age of genomic exploration and technology we may pay a horrible price as those that cannot develop nuclear arsenals may turn to viral arsenals instead. 

With that being said, why the hell is it the United States' responsibility to teach this bully a lesson? Why is Secretary of State Kerry selling this limited action so hard, AHEAD of the UN results. Truly the timing on this is making me nervous. 

First off, in this uncertain world, death and taxes are the only two constants yet he has been throwing around the word "guaranty"  like he was George Zimmer from the Men's Wearhouse. 

Anytime a politician guarantees something be afraid, be very afraid. 

I don't doubt the motives, I mean who wouldn't be moved by those horrible images but what we're proposing will create more horrible images in the form of collateral damage. Kerry has not been able to provide substantial answers to questions of mission creep, specifically: What will the US do if Syria uses chemical weapons again, retaliates or an ally retaliates? What will happen if Bashar al-Assad decides to hit the West back by supplying Hezbollah with chemical weapons.  

I've heard too many theories in response to real questions and the one thing I'm afraid of and I see that is similar to Iraq is the belief that it will be a limited engagement, so it is planned as such. We didn't have an exit strategy for Iraq because we didn't think we'd need one. We don't have one now because we're not planning to go in, no boots on the ground is what they say but will an airstrike really deliver the right message?