Secretary
of State Kerry said that anyone that believes Syrian rebels would use nerve
agent on civilians instead of the government should check their 'moral
compass'. Yes it may be true that a government rather than citizens might be
motivated to victimize so many generally, yet in the case of an international
legion of terrorists from across the Sunni world we cannot be so certain.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23883427
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/world/middleeast/syria.html?_r=0
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23883427
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/world/middleeast/syria.html?_r=0
Al
Qaeda is active in the Syrian conflict as well as other terrorist groups and there
are not known to be recalcitrant over creating civilian casualties. One's moral
compass may point to the World Trade Center 9-11-2001 as well as the Pentagon
as examples of terrorist attacks on civilians. With the largely Sunni
development of suicide bombs in the Middle East that has proliferated across
the world mostly targeting civilians it is difficult for a moral compass to
ignore that direction. Thousands and thousands in Iraq were killed by suicide
bombings and very likely terrorist groups exploiting utilitarian and pragmatic
rules would decide that sacrificing a few thousand civilians to get the United
States to hand victory to them would be worth the cost.
It
is also possible that some terrorist groups don't really care so much for
Syrians since they aren't from Syria. It is rather instructive that Sect. Kerry
has so much respect for the moral compass of terrorists that he does not
consider it possible that they could get and use nerve agent on civilians in
Syria, yet I am not so sure myself.
When
competent and complete investigation of the cause of the use of nerve agent in
the Damascus suburb is present then direct legal action with international
force ought to be taken. Pitching horseshoes for causus belli of
interventionist conflict isn't so good after the fact if it turns out the
approximate and uncertain reason for entering into a non-proximal to U.S.
interest conflict was wrong.
Sect.
Kerry is of a billionaire family that is a member of the global plutocracy.
They tend to view the world through their own values of where what is good
for-themselves is good for the poor and middle class. Russia has about 75
billionaires with a GDP of only 1.2 trillion dollars. It is understandable that
President Putin has found it tough to reign in an incipient oligarchy. Public
interest requires that government look out for the 150 million non-billionaire Russians
as well as to serve the very few. The U.S.A. has more than 400 billionaires and
China about 100. These are very influential people in business and politics
that may preclude political developments that would tax or conflict with their
class interests of collecting rents and consolidating wealth. Too often the
environment is not protected, conserved or restored because of the influence of
oligarchs.
Sect.
Kerry finds civilian casualties in Syria from chemical weapons a 'moral
obscenity' yet to those wound and killed by explosives and conventional weapons
to a similar extent the difference between non-obscenity and obscenity is
rather vague. For some all casualties of war are the obscenity rather than
those killed by a particular kind of weapon.
War
crimes and conventions defining war crimes do exist and respect for rule of law
on those international agreements should be used instead of kangaroo court
edicts by the most powerful that may or may not have a record of trustworthiness.
If it becomes evident that a plain and substantive use of chemical weapons is
the real policy of the Syrian or any other government in an existing war than
there ought to be real time to react. That standard has just not been met in
Iraq, and it is wrong to stipulate vague standards that anyone may try to get under
or frame up to meet in order to precipitate international intervention of one
side.
Watching
the war may make Sect. Kerry feel a little like an N.F.L. referee that should
intervene whenever he sees a foul. Yet that paradigm is perhaps a wrong
perspective by which to view world events and the Syrian civil war. It is at
any rate a little uncomfortable to consider such a policy if the U.S.A. were
not the most powerful nation militarily on Earth considering the intervention.
What if it was China choosing where and when to intervene and what sort of
government to depose?