The Wrongologist

A
Succinct Summary of our Syrian Policy:

To recapitulate:

• Syria
  is not a threat to the US; its chemical weapons are not a threat either

• The
  idea of firing missiles to “send a message” is appalling; our message
  will be heard in the same language as the people who used sarin: Dead Syrians

• Secretary
  Kerry justifies a unilateral attack on Syria by referring to the Chemical
  Weapons Convention that bans chemical weapons (see more below). Supporters of
  Kerry’s policy are willing to violate the “rule of law” offshore, something they
  would never propose at home

• If
  the US claims to be enforcing international law, we ought to have an
  international consensus that something needs to be done, plus a consensus on
  what should be done, and some allies participating with us, all wrapped up in a
  UN resolution

• Without
  these things, an attack on Syria would be just an example of America
  unilaterally beating up on a small country because we can

• We
  need to differentiate between having “credibility” with the
  nations of the world and being viewed as the world’s bully

Regarding CW, the
chemical weapons ban is one of the few weapons restrictions for which there is almost
complete global compliance, only 6 nations have not signed or ratified the
treaty. Somalia just ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention while Angola,
South Sudan, Egypt, and Syria haven’t signed, and Israel and Myanmar haven’t
ratified it.

Although Syria is one of the last holdouts to the treaty,
it does not represent a risk of proliferation of chemical weapons. Few nations
have stocks of chemical weapons at all. The US and Russia are slowly
destroying the last of their stockpile. China will have the old Japanese
stockpile that is still in Chinese territory dismantled by 2022.

So, there is no truth
to the idea that chemical weapons are proliferating.

It is time for America’s
friends, Israel, Egypt and Myanmar to sign or ratify the Chemical Weapons
Convention.  It is important for the Egyptian government to
move quickly to declare and dismantle any chemical weapons it might be holding.
It is probably at least as important as in Syria.  

The fact that we are not
hearing any discussion about any of these actions by the Very Serious People of DC belies the
argument that what we are considering in Syria is only about chemical weapons.

If Assad’s regime is
to survive, he must reconstitute his government with domestic as well as global
political alliances. The claim that Assad used chemical weapons on his own
people is now credible, even among people who believed he was ruthless, but did
not think that he would use chemical weapons inside his own borders. This means
his patrons Iran and Russia, must think twice about their support for
Assad. Under any political agreement that allows Assad to remain in power, the
patrons will not let him maintain his current stock of chemical weapons or
control them in the same manner as today. It impacts their global credibility.

The real CW danger in
the world is the Do-It-Yourself creation of “good enough” chemical
weapons by militant groups, but the US and other supporters of intervention are
discounting that as a possibility in Syria. The possible proliferation of
just-good-enough chemicals by non-state actors is a much more plausible risk, one for which cruise missiles offer no
mitigation.

Pom-pom waving about
Syria by Sen. McCain and others in Congress is an appalling failure to exercise
real due diligence with their power to declare war. We have apparently learned
nothing from our experiences in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

This idea is being
fueled by Congress’ preferred stab-in-the-back rationalization, “Obama won’t
let us win”, rather than taking the time to look at the facts:

Meddling in other
countries unites their people against you–even if you think you are a force
for good, and they hate their dictators.