I am sure Secretary of State John Kerry is more knowledgeable about the gravity of war than most of us, having seen war close up. I am also sure he has seen more intelligence in recent days/weeks than we can imagine. And I share his sentiment that the usage of chemical weapons is unacceptable and awful. He and President Obama have made an important point, HOWEVER they left out the most important of points...
ALL war, and ALL killing, is morally obscene! Of course there are different degrees of obscenity, I suppose, and different levels of morality. While WWII was a morally obscene war, it was a moral NECESSITY that we fight in that war and put the Nazis, Italian fascists, and Japanese imperialists out of business. It was the right thing to do.
Is shooting missiles into Syria the "right thing to do"? Defeating evil, when it serves our national interest, may be a good thing. HOWEVER, in Syria there is only bad and worse. The number of factions fighting the Assad regime is at least ten. Nobody really knows. WE do know, though, that the rebels are not to be considered less bad or less evil than the government in place. That would be the wrong assumption to make. We also know that the atrocity of chemical weapon use in Syria, awful as it is, does not constitute an imminent or direct threat to the United States. So HOW is it in our national interest to (under the veil of an international coalition) bomb Syrian targets? What are the consequences of such action? What are the UNINTENDED consequences of such action? Does President Obama know? Does Kerry know? Do any of the military or intelligence strategists even know? My educated guess is NO. Nobody really knows what would follow a punishing salvo of missiles shot into Syrian military and governmental command targets.
So, in light of our well-known habit for miscalculation and hubris, why should we as a nation enter another war against a nation in the Middle East? Is this a humanitarian mission? Is it a "regime change" mission? What is the objective of such a mission? Is there even any debate on television, or in the halls of Congress about this right now? Are we about to bumble and stumble into a very counterproductive and costly endeavor, no matter how "noble" sending the message that chemical weapon use is unacceptable may be?
With Egypt and the rest of the tinder box known as the Middle East becoming more Anti-American by the month, and with the total chaos that would follow the fall of the Assad regime, how is ANY military action in our national interest right now?
There are no good choices here. In that light, it is incumbent on President Obama in the coming days/weeks to pick the "least bad choice", and do so with one thought in mind to guide his decision, that thought being "ALL WAR IS MORALLY OBSCENE".
Avoid another war at all costs, President Obama. We are not in any imminent danger, and most Americans are tired of our militaristic stance of the past 12 years. Nobody in Syria attacked us. We cannot police every brutal dictator and what he does to his people, wherever in the world that may occur. Hell, we don't even know with 100% certainty that it wasn't OPPONENTS of Assad who used the chemicals in an effort to frame his government and trick us into entering the war. Given our history, and how Secretary Powell sounded just as convincing as Kerry did today, back in 2003 when he presented to the U.N., it is hard to believe that they know for sure.
So I, for one, will keep my fingers crossed and hope we don't step off the edge of a cliff with Syria. The decision, if made, could be devastating and ruin the Obama legacy. Haven't seen much discussion on DKos today about this. I suspect most here may agree with me, but vote in the poll to let me know.