- New Mexico decides to use HealthCare.gov for 2015
- Satanists to use Hobby Lobby rule to skirt state abortion laws
- White House: No choice but to act now on climate change
- HHS: ‘Donut hole’ reforms saved Medicare enrollees $11.5 billion since 2010
- Boston-area tornado rips 100 homes: ‘Are we in Kansas?’
- Rush Limbaugh: ‘There is no journalism anymore’
- Scott Brown struggles for political traction in New Hampshire Senate race
- California’s Jerry Brown cites God, ‘religious call’ to embrace illegals
- Hamid Karzai’s cousin killed by suicide bomber at Eid al-Fitr party
- Obama thanks Muslims for ‘building the very fabric of our nation’
EDITORIAL: Showdown in Syria
Obama’s reluctance to engage leads to crisis now
Question of the Day
War fever is exciting, thrilling even, and it’s contagious. Where it stops, none can tell. Prudent presidents go slowly, keeping all options open, measuring their response twice to cut it once.
Secretary of State John Kerry is leading the charge for President Obama, calling the evidence of poison gas sprayed on Syrian civilians a “moral obscenity,” and all but saying Bashar Assad has crossed Mr. Obama’s celebrated “red line.” This is short of the president saying that, but not by much. Secretaries of state are not freelancers.
Chuck Hagel, the secretary of defense, says his troops are “ready to go.” The Arab League holds Mr. Assad “responsible,” and Saudi Arabia and Qatar condemn “unconventional weapons,” suggesting cover if the Western nations intervene. British Prime Minister David Cameron has recalled Parliament to London, presumably to stand by for action, and Paris says “France will not shirk its responsibilities.” Everyone knows his lines. Russia and China, eager to reassure their client in Damascus, make the usual rumbling noises.
No dictator, not even Stalin or Hitler, deserved a Tomahawk missile down his throat more than Bashar Assad. The video images of the children, twitching in spasms of unimaginable pain on the brink of merciful death, demand retribution beyond the power of mere words.
Chemical warfare is swift, silent and effective, and the West suspects that Mr. Assad has used the same agents that Saddam Hussein used on dozens of Kurdish villages in Iraq 25 years ago. This was a mixture of several nerve agents, including VX, which is particularly lethal. A tiny drop one eighth the size of a raindrop on the skin will kill an adult man. “Like figures unearthed in Pompeii,” Richard Beeston of the London Times reported on arriving in the town of Halabja, “the victims of Halabja were killed so quickly that their corpses remained in suspended animation. There was a plump baby whose face, frozen in a scream, stuck out from under the protective arm of a man, away from the open door of a house that he never reached.”
Nearly 5,000 Kurds, including the inevitable women and children, died at Halabja of skin burns, asphyxiation, and collapse of the lungs. More than twice that many, a study by the University of Liverpool concluded, were blinded, maimed or irreversibly disfigured. Similar figures can be expected to emerge from Syria.
Going to war is lethal business, too, and President Obama is rightly reluctant to commit the United States to another war in the Middle East, where nothing is ever settled and religious brutality is sometimes the national sport. Revenge can be sweet, but the life of a single American soldier must be weighed against the prospect of accomplishing permanent good in Syria.
Chemical weapons — gas warfare — have struck particular terror in the West since the bitter experience of World War I. Both the Allies and the Axis had chemical weapons in World War II, and Winston Churchill and his military chiefs considered using them when Britain faced invasion in the summer of 1940 and again in 1944, when the allied race to Berlin stalled in the Ruhr. Moral considerations outweighed the prospects of military advantage. Morality is rarely held so dear in the Middle East.
Going to war against Mr. Assad cannot be justified merely as revenge, as sweet as that might be, but only as an object lesson to other brutes with access to hideous weapons. President Obama’s reluctance to act earlier, when missiles might not have been the language of negotiations, leads to the harder decision he faces now.
About the Author
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Time for some policy 'pars' from golfer-in-chief
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Texas law is making women safer
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Redskins partnership is a win-win
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: No taxpayer funds for illegals
- EDITORIAL: The two faces of Mark Warner
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
Get Breaking Alerts
- GOP Senate candidate: Obama needs to visit Central America
- D.C. seeks to stay judge's order allowing gun owners to carry in public
- Hillary Clinton: Forget Obama, George W. Bush made her 'proud to be an American'
- Border surge puts Obama legacy on immigration at stake
- EPSTEIN: All IRS roads lead to the archivist
- Illegal immigrants demand representation in White House meetings
- Smugglers, rainstorm combine to poke holes in border fence
- Federal appeals court rules against Virginia's gay marriage ban
- PRUDEN: When the hangman botches the job
- Romney would win popular vote in rematch against Obama: CNN poll