here we go again smaller
Yesterday, John Kerry made a compelling statement on Syria using strong language about Bashar Assad’s “indiscriminate slaughter of civilians.” As many of us felt “that familiar feeling” of impending-war-dread in the pit of our stomachs, John McCain salivated.
Striking back militarily means more people will die, even more people will get angrier and want to retaliate, and there would be no lasting resolution. Even the deterrent effect would be highly questionable.
But if we don’t respond, then we would be tacitly allowing the use of chemical weapons to kill innocent civilians.
There is no clear solution. There are no easy answers. There is no feel-good response. Sadly, this is a lose-lose situation, and as much as the horrific images appearing on our TV screens were appalling, horribly disturbing, and sickeningly heart-wrenching, hitting back militarily likely won’t have the result we would hope for.
And looking ahead, who would take over in Syria? What would the outcome be?
An already volatile region would be thrown into further turmoil. Iran is making the usual noise, itchy trigger fingers abound both over there and over here among our own Congress members, tensions are high. Or to put it another way, what a mess.