What was it, 59 or so cruise missiles at about a mill a piece to send a message to Syria’s dictator Assad for using chemical weapons and killing women and children in his war against rebels. Expensive but immensely more impression building than Obama’s fecklessness. A few other dictators were sent the message as well – in Iran, in North Korea for sure and maybe Russia and China to the effect that their support of such ilk can no longer be as freewheeling. There is a new sheriff in town.
We suspect that North Korea ramped up its belligerence at China’s behest prior to Xi’s state visit in an effort to highlight a potential bargaining chip to be used against whatever Trump was getting at — to the effect that China would be happy to talk to North Korea but “Donald we can’t have this unfair trade talk interfere with our attention to the North Korean matter. ” President Trump’s action, the right thing in itself as far as we know, went a long way toward establishing that he does mean business in more ways than one.
While it was convenient and timely opportunity to make those points this post is not intended to argue all aspects of the Syria / cruise missile matter or the responsibility of the rebels and who they are. Nor is it to argue whether there is any change of attitude on the part of Trump as if he is now going to be the world’s policeman. We don’t think the latest Syria action is inconsistent with Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric during the election campaign because he said a lot of relevant things (arguably contradictory), including words to the effect that decisiveness will be a watchword when action is required.
Our purpose is more about the rhetoric of WMDs and the narrative that Bush lied (Trump was egregious on the matter as well). The ironies in all this from the usual suspects, abounds.
WMD’s – Middle East dictator — “lines in the sand — United Nation’s resolutions” — where have we heard this story before?
Here we offer a number of links where it will take little effort to glean that chemical weapons are considered weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) by the left when they are not bashing Bush for trying to root them out from Saddam Hussein, who also used them. And that they believe in the legitimacy of doing so as part of executive authority.
Does Trump have authority to attack Syria?
President Obama notoriously sought Congressional approval for Syrian intervention in 2013 (Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against the Government of Syria to Respond to Use of Chemical Weapons) and was denied it. In a speech, Obama stated that receiving authorization was unnecessary, but made any intervention “stronger” and “more effective” by presenting a united front: “[W]hile I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective.” When Obama decided to intervene in Libya, he completely bypassed any authorization, insisting that it was in the “national interest.”
…
Maybe Trump is coming into his own as an international affairs pragmatist, seizing the authority to use military force when the situation demands it (to solve the Syria problem?). The most pragmatic thing to do, at least in cases involving the use of biological and chemical weapons, might just be to act first, get Congressional permission later.
PolitiFact: John Kerry ‘proved wrong’ after Syria chemical attack
Kerry Cites Clear Evidence of Chemical Weapon Use in Syria
Both Obama and Kerry maintain that chemical weapons are particularly vile and civilization has chosen to ban them. Full text here, excerpt below
Our choices then, in history, had great consequences. And our choice today has great consequences. It matters that nearly 100 years ago in direct response to the utter horror and inhumanity of World War I that the civilized world agreed that chemical weapons should never be used again. That was the world’s resolve then. And that began nearly a century of effort to create a clear red line for the international community.
Syrian chemical weapons destroyed, but concerns continue, Obama says
And if he thwarts inspections? (link above)
“Serious questions remain with respect to the omissions and discrepancies in Syria’s declaration to the [Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)] and about continued allegations of use,” Mr. Obama said in a written statement Monday. “These concerns must be addressed, and we will work closely with the OPCW and the international community to seek resolution of these open issues, even as we broadly press the Asad regime to end the horrific atrocities it continues to commit against its people.”
Nation building anyone? (same article as above)
Assad lost any legitimacy to lead Syria long before he gassed his own people to death. The United States will continue to provide political, financial, and other support to the moderate opposition because we are committed to help those who seek the right of all Syrians to choose a future of peace and oppose the violent extremists who exploit the chaos and ruin that Assad has brought to Syria. A free Syria where people can live without fear is a milestone we should all be committed to achieve together,” Kerry said.
Not that there are not denials, shades of the Hussein regime
Syrian Foreign Minister Denies Using Chemical Weapons
Brits seem to know that there were chemical stockpiles secreted around in Iraq
Halabja chemical weapons: A chance to find the men who armed Saddam
“But we know there are still some chemical stockpiles in Iraq that are being dealt with, which is open source information, and we can probably get a sample from there and match it against what we’ve found here to provide conclusive evidence – so technically it is possible.”
The Unresolved Mystery of Syria’s ‘Iraqi’ Chemical Weapons
And this delightful assurance from the New York Times,
They Said It Couldn’t Be Done The Fate of Syria’s Chemical Weapons (excerpted with relish, bold emphasis ours)
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD JUNE 28, 2014
The resulting deal, which obligated Syria to give up its stockpile of mustard gas and precursor chemicals for sarin gas and other nerve agents, reduced the threat to innocent civilians. Mr. Obama averted military strikes, which were deeply unpopular at home and could have pulled the United States into the Syrian war, and President Vladimir Putin of Russia, faulted for selling arms to Mr. Assad and enabling his atrocities, saw his way to a diplomatic success.
President Obama’s critics excoriated the deal, but they have been proved wrong. The chemical weapons are now out of the hands of a brutal dictator — and all without firing a shot.
And last but not least, as pointed out by Molly Hemingway at The Federalist, Syria signed a treaty barring the use of chemical weapons. Her theme The Case for Strikes In Syria Is Better Than The Case For War is well taken and not inconsistent with Trump’s position and our national interest.
All these links provide important “perspective” to the Democrats’ rhetoric about WMDs and Iraq. The truth is that Saddam’s Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and maintained caches and labs hidden away. He was maintaining capability, violating key elements of the Gulf War armistice including preventing the ability of coalition forces to assure conditions were being met. The only choice Saddam left Bush was to take him out.
R Mall
