Upon hearing of the chemical attacks in Syria, my first instinct was that I would support a retaliatory move. I have since had second thoughts, especially in light of the fact that such a move has the potential to dramatically increase U.S.-Russian tensions. Our friend Gronda has put forth some things to think about, some reasons why perhaps, just perhaps, another form of retaliation ought to be considered before air strikes. Please take a few minutes to read and think about these things. Many thanks, Gronda!
The republican President Donald J. Trump has already announced that the US will conduct air strikes against Syria for its government’s usage of chemical weapons against its own peoples. Personally, I agree with this plan of action but there are many who disagree with my thinking. Below is a Lawfare article which argues against the bombing as a retaliation tactic.
Most of us have understandably reacted with horror to the devastating pictures of the chemical weapons attack on children and women. There is the inevitable reaction: We must do something. But acting on this impulse can do and has done harm in the past.
The World Health Organization announced Wednesday (4/11/18) that 500 people have been affected by the latest chemical attack in Douma, Syria, on April 7 and more than 70 people have died, per the BBC.
Russia and Syrian officials have been denying their involvement but after Russia…
View original post 1,031 more words