Syria

Everyone condemns the use of chemical weapons against civilian populations. But what does that mean, exactly? Tsk-tsk, or consequences for those who use them?

The parallels to Iraq that are so popular in Britain and in some of the mass media are way off the point. Much more relevant here is the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

The Syrian civil war - part of a much larger internecine war in the Muslim community - is a complicated quagmire; from a Western point of view, the choice of winner is none of the above. But if you don't think you've just seen proof of how likely it is that a nuclear weapon will be used once it's built, you're kidding yourself.

If you're serious about curtailing the use of chemical weapons on civilians or even stopping war in general, logic dictates a doctrine that says the use of any weapons of mass destruction will provoke a military response, if not by all, at least by some. And the response has to be very serious and out of proportion with the consequences of the chemical strike. Pinpricks will have the opposite effect.

Such a doctrine is not exactly pretty, and it doesn't have the beautiful internal logic of Aristotle, but it's a hell of a lot more effective than economic sanctions, let alone hand-wringing by talking heads on Fox and CNN.

The Sunni-Shia conflict in the Middle East is only going to get worse and deeper over the next few months and most likely years. Syria will continue to burn. It's not a conflict that the West can win or even stop.  But if you're looking to lessen the fallout, both in the region and the wider world, you need to take steps to do so.



No comments: