Thursday, September 5, 2013

Our Absurd Syrian Debate.

The decision to bomb or not bomb Syria is often characterized as important or meaningful. Is that even close to the case?

This campaign is intended to be limited in duration and intensity. It is not intended to oust Assad. It is not intended to eliminate chemical weapons. It is meant as a message, and only a message that there will be limited consequences of low intensity and short duration that falls short of regime change and elimination of the ability to use chemical weapons if a red line is crossed. 

The volume of the debate in Washington and how this matter is characterized by the peripatetic press (Look! There's a squirrel!)  is absurd. This is not a decision of great import. Bombing will have no lasting impact. I would guess that why opinion polls show overwhelming opposition. 


No comments:

Post a Comment