This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/sep/02/syria-chemical-weapons
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Syria chemical attacks: when science takes a back seat to morality | Syria chemical attacks: when science takes a back seat to morality |
| (34 minutes later) | |
| As the UN scientists and weapons inspectors analyse the data retrieved from the purported site of the chemical attack in Damascus, there remains little doubt that Assad's regime in Syria bears responsibility for the horrific gassing which killed over 1,400 people on 21 August. In any case, since the UN inspectors do not plan to report on who is responsible for the murderous attacks, the scientific evidence that the inspectors will provide has become a moot point. | As the UN scientists and weapons inspectors analyse the data retrieved from the purported site of the chemical attack in Damascus, there remains little doubt that Assad's regime in Syria bears responsibility for the horrific gassing which killed over 1,400 people on 21 August. In any case, since the UN inspectors do not plan to report on who is responsible for the murderous attacks, the scientific evidence that the inspectors will provide has become a moot point. |
| On Friday 30 August, Secretary of State John Kerry laid out a wealth of unclassified information showcasing the involvement of Assad's regime in the massacres, and highlighting the US moral obligation to act. The following day, President Obama spoke with his usual eloquence, outlining the moral imperative of demonstrating to the Syrian regime (and other regimes that may harbour similar thoughts of using weapons of mass destruction) that its actions would not be condoned. President Obama did, however, indicate that he intended to first seek and obtain support from the American people through their representatives in Congress. Interestingly, and in my view erroneously, a variety of pundits, analysts and leaders in the Middle East think this decision reflects inherent weakness in the president. | On Friday 30 August, Secretary of State John Kerry laid out a wealth of unclassified information showcasing the involvement of Assad's regime in the massacres, and highlighting the US moral obligation to act. The following day, President Obama spoke with his usual eloquence, outlining the moral imperative of demonstrating to the Syrian regime (and other regimes that may harbour similar thoughts of using weapons of mass destruction) that its actions would not be condoned. President Obama did, however, indicate that he intended to first seek and obtain support from the American people through their representatives in Congress. Interestingly, and in my view erroneously, a variety of pundits, analysts and leaders in the Middle East think this decision reflects inherent weakness in the president. |
| I disagree. | I disagree. |
| President Obama is undoubtedly all too aware of the way his ally Prime Minister Cameron was sidelined by the British legislature. For this reason, a calculated and organised president such as Obama must already know that he will receive support for his plan to use military force against the Syrian regime. So perception by the Syrian regime and others in the Middle East that Obama is "weak" will likely change rapidly when the US military takes action later this month. | President Obama is undoubtedly all too aware of the way his ally Prime Minister Cameron was sidelined by the British legislature. For this reason, a calculated and organised president such as Obama must already know that he will receive support for his plan to use military force against the Syrian regime. So perception by the Syrian regime and others in the Middle East that Obama is "weak" will likely change rapidly when the US military takes action later this month. |
| I am not an expert on Syria and the complex and horrible civil war that has been ravaging the country for two years. As a soldier a quarter century ago, I faced the Syrians across the Golan Heights and along the Damascus-Beirut highway in Lebanon. But I bear no animosity to the Syrian people, and every reported death in the civil war inherently saddens me. Particularly when children are casualties. However, I have had the opportunity to hear those who are experts speak about Syria. | I am not an expert on Syria and the complex and horrible civil war that has been ravaging the country for two years. As a soldier a quarter century ago, I faced the Syrians across the Golan Heights and along the Damascus-Beirut highway in Lebanon. But I bear no animosity to the Syrian people, and every reported death in the civil war inherently saddens me. Particularly when children are casualties. However, I have had the opportunity to hear those who are experts speak about Syria. |
| The University of Nebraska at Omaha recently hosted a workshop on the "Arab Spring", with one of the world's foremost experts on Syria, Professor Joshua Landis, whose website Syria Comment is arguably one of the best sources for accurate and up-to-date information and analysis of the situation in Syria. The overwhelming feeling is that there is no end in sight to the conflict, and that the demography and sectarianism in Syria make it likely that the civil war will be long, bloody, and with no winner – only multiple losers. This is part of the reason that the US has not entered the fray – that and war-weariness from Iraq and Afghanistan. | The University of Nebraska at Omaha recently hosted a workshop on the "Arab Spring", with one of the world's foremost experts on Syria, Professor Joshua Landis, whose website Syria Comment is arguably one of the best sources for accurate and up-to-date information and analysis of the situation in Syria. The overwhelming feeling is that there is no end in sight to the conflict, and that the demography and sectarianism in Syria make it likely that the civil war will be long, bloody, and with no winner – only multiple losers. This is part of the reason that the US has not entered the fray – that and war-weariness from Iraq and Afghanistan. |
| Mr Obama and Mr Kerry have been articulate in voicing their rationale for targeted military action in response to the use of chemical weapons. But was there not a moral imperative to intervene as tens and even a hundred thousand citizens have already died in the brutal civil war – not to mention the millions of refugees who have fled the country? | Mr Obama and Mr Kerry have been articulate in voicing their rationale for targeted military action in response to the use of chemical weapons. But was there not a moral imperative to intervene as tens and even a hundred thousand citizens have already died in the brutal civil war – not to mention the millions of refugees who have fled the country? |
| This is a hell of a question. Sometimes I have trouble sleeping, as nightmarish photos flit through my mind of painful images from the Syrian civil war. And of course such awful events occur not just in Syria. There is no lack of indiscriminate killing on any part of the globe. Is it any less terrible to be killed by gunfire or an artillery shell than to be gassed with a chemical? Is death by chemicals more painful than a bullet to the stomach, or shrapnel from an exploding bomb? Fortunately for me, I have no basis for comparison, but any taking of innocent lives is a terrible thing. | This is a hell of a question. Sometimes I have trouble sleeping, as nightmarish photos flit through my mind of painful images from the Syrian civil war. And of course such awful events occur not just in Syria. There is no lack of indiscriminate killing on any part of the globe. Is it any less terrible to be killed by gunfire or an artillery shell than to be gassed with a chemical? Is death by chemicals more painful than a bullet to the stomach, or shrapnel from an exploding bomb? Fortunately for me, I have no basis for comparison, but any taking of innocent lives is a terrible thing. |
| The rationale for intervening and the use of military might at this point is that chemical (and other weapons of mass destruction) are outlawed by the world. There is a firm consensus by democratic (and even non-democratic) countries that such weapons go beyond the horrors of conventional weapons, and put the world at risk. Certainly such a case can be made about any weapons – but dictators will always seek arms to gain and maintain control, and democracies need to bear arms to protect themselves. So if there is a consensus at least with regards to the ABCs – atomic, biological and chemical – then that is better than no consensus. | The rationale for intervening and the use of military might at this point is that chemical (and other weapons of mass destruction) are outlawed by the world. There is a firm consensus by democratic (and even non-democratic) countries that such weapons go beyond the horrors of conventional weapons, and put the world at risk. Certainly such a case can be made about any weapons – but dictators will always seek arms to gain and maintain control, and democracies need to bear arms to protect themselves. So if there is a consensus at least with regards to the ABCs – atomic, biological and chemical – then that is better than no consensus. |
| The moral imperative of taking action has fallen to the US. The United Nations has Russia as a permanent member of the Security Council, and being a staunch supporter of the Assad regime (and a major weapons sellers to Assad), Russia is willfully ignoring morality. China also opposes any US-led resolutions, as part of its role in vying for international power. For this reason, the US alone is positioned to send a message to Damascus. Without being held responsible, Assad and other regimes will learn that there are no consequences for flaunting international law and killing with chemical weapons. Indeed, dictators often judge Americans as being weak or strong based on the American resolve in enforcing such regulations. The Assad regime may see the US as weak for its decision to seek congressional support – but chances are this won't last long. | The moral imperative of taking action has fallen to the US. The United Nations has Russia as a permanent member of the Security Council, and being a staunch supporter of the Assad regime (and a major weapons sellers to Assad), Russia is willfully ignoring morality. China also opposes any US-led resolutions, as part of its role in vying for international power. For this reason, the US alone is positioned to send a message to Damascus. Without being held responsible, Assad and other regimes will learn that there are no consequences for flaunting international law and killing with chemical weapons. Indeed, dictators often judge Americans as being weak or strong based on the American resolve in enforcing such regulations. The Assad regime may see the US as weak for its decision to seek congressional support – but chances are this won't last long. |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |