“US Is Willing to Go Solo on Syria,” (LATimes Aug 30) says the U.S. government’s case for a punitive strike against Syria is having difficulty persuading allies due to the memory of false claims during the Bush administration about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. The UN inspectors had already said they could find no such weapons in Iraq. Those UN inspectors had the information on the ground, and they had convinced me weapons of mass destruction would not be found. But that administration disdained information from the UN inspectors, thinking they knew better.
This time I have just read the US government’s unclassified “Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013.” The evidence is overwhelming. I am convinced that the Syrian government did launch an extensive poison gas attack on a Damascus suburb that they had been unable to conquer by conventional weapons, and that it killed 1,429 people, including at least 426 children, and maybe more. Soon we are likely to hear confirmation from United Nations inspectors who are present on the ground now.
But president Obama endorsed the practices of just peacemaking in his Nobel Peace Award Address. These practices stimulate us to think not only of retaliation, but also of constructive alternatives that can achieve more. The real problem is Syria’s large store of poison gas weapons. Can we think of an alternative that could deal with them?
Syria has the largest supply of poison gas of any nation. If Syria is now punished for its use of some of these illegal weapons, it will still have the largest supply of poison gas of any nation. Some of this supply could yet be used by the Syrian regime in its desperate and despicable attacks on human beings. The point of the retaliation of course would be to persuade them to avoid using them again.
But we all agree that after such punitive action, for Syria then still to possess this huge supply of such illegal, people-killing poison gas is enormously worrisome. Even if the regime itself would never use it again, some of it could fall into the hands of terrorists. The U.S. and others are anxiously monitoring that danger.
Here is a constructive alternative: remind Syria that the U.S. has destroyed its own supplies of poison gas weapons. The U.S. has experts experienced in how to destroy these weapons safely. Ask Syria to let our experts guide the destruction of Syria’s dangerous supply of poison gas weapons. If they do so, then there will be no retaliatory strike.
Syria may have interests in accepting such an invitation. But otherwise, Syria is an international criminal, to be opposed by most all other nations. Otherwise, Syria will experience a very hurtful punitive attack. Otherwise, Syria needs to be worried that rebels against its government could gain possession of some of the poison gas and use it against its own regime. If Syria would agree, its international reputation could improve some, and the likelihood of other nations supporting and/or joining its rebels fighting against its regime would decrease.
The problem is that destroying these poison gas weapons would not be done in a week; it could take a couple of years. The US would need to fashion “smart sanctions” as it eventually did for Iraq to keep the pressure on Syria to continue the process of getting rid of the weapons.
I have a dream: a Syria with zero poison gas weapons. Punitive retaliation will not achieve that dream. A constructive alternative could.
Of course the probably outcome would be that the regime would decline the offer. Then we would be back to where we are now. The punitive strike would proceed. Nothing would be lost by having made the offer. Something, in fact, would be gained: the world would see that the U.S. is seeking to produce a constructive outcome.
