Benghazi had some Syria connection, and maybe some Egypt connection as well, and the US administration has been lying like a rug since the get-go. Maybe they have some good reasons for that; trying to cover up weapons shipments to Syrian insurgents. Although some of them ask for US help, I'd suspect most wouldn't be eager to stain their good Islamic credentials by too much public fraternizing with the Great Satan. So to first order I conclude that we've been shipping arms and other goodies to one or more insurgent groups--and if prior experience is any guide we've sent stuff to enemy groups more than once.
So now there's another poison episode, that seems to kill 1/10 of the victims. Other attacks seem to have killed about 1/3, making this seem more like the Bhopal disaster (1/20 killed). Which suggests that the attack, if it was the government using chemical weapons, wasn't well executed. If rebel groups had the weapons they might not know how to use them effectively. Or somebody might be stirring the pot with something that wasn't completely weaponized. Or this was an accident with stolen weapons.
Although the foreign policy of this administration seems to be managed via Ouija board, I still try to see if there's any sense to this. As plenty of people have already pointed out, we're better off if both groups lose. So there's no sense to intervening unless there's some vital interest at stake. And there is one, that isn't talked about: seizing control of loose chemical weapons. "Punishing" or "sending a signal" makes no sense. We know he had weapons already, and we know he already used them. So where's the urgency? Is something slipping? (And do you trust ∅ to keep his eye on the ball?)
3 comments:
The Middle East is where good intentions go to die. Doing nothing is usually better than doing something. But not always. Your thought that loose chemical weapons, in the hands of people who don’t know what they are doing, does seem to be something we could be alarmed about.
I wonder if leaked information and openness, which we like as Americans because it fits our image of ourselves and gives us some ability to know what our leaders (who we seldom trust) are really doing, rather forces us into larger, open war? I think I’ll write that one up.
Ach. That's me, assistant village idiot on my wife's account. I'll switch.
I left out the detail that the French seem to be on board too. They've usually got their eyes on their national interest, and Obama's domestic struggles won't register on their radar. That, plus the Brits... something seems to be afoot. And this time it isn't French oil contracts.
I agree that foreign policy involves enough nuance and lying to make leaks and "openness" (if it is only one-sided revelations, is it openness?) turn things black and white: act or don't act. We put ourselves in a nasty bind with that law stopping aid to regimes assuming power via coup. Sometimes it is in our interest to deal with the lesser evil, and nobody ever promised that the democratic process would yield benign government. When you worship the magic process, you lose good judgment.
Post a Comment