Syria: What's the Rush to Enter the War?

There is no doubt that chemical attacks are a crime against humanity, an abomination that should be contained and punished.

But why the rush to launch military strikes against Syria?

It took US President Bush Senior five months after the invasion of Kuwait to start the war on Iraq.


Burning oilfield during Operation Desert Storm...Burning oilfield during Operation Desert Storm, Kuwait (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I'm not suggesting we should wait five months but we should at least put our case together in a strong, legal way. With the United Nations and the international community at large. 

So far, the countries supporting war besides the US are only two: France and Britain. Germany and Italy lean towards seeking UN Security Council approval first - which is no doubt going to be difficult given Russia's position of unfailing support to Syria. Not to mention China's. Still, it should be tried. 

I just can't understand why our politicians act like warmongers. It is fine to be morally indignant about chemical warfare, who isn't? 

But to launch yet another series of air strikes à la Lybia-style when we know that the rebels on the ground are mostly violent muslim extremists, is that wise? 

Or is it a way for Mr. Cameron and Mr. Hollande to draw people's attention away from the economic problems both countries are facing? Guns as a solution to bread and butter issues are a classic...

What do you think? 
Enhanced by Zemanta
6