There Is A Downside To Bombing Syria Due To Its Recent Chemical Attacks On Civilians

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!

Gronda Morin

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

41 thoughts on “There Is A Downside To Bombing Syria Due To Its Recent Chemical Attacks On Civilians

  1. Dear Jill,

    Thanks for re-blogging this post. It is my opinion only that the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad decided that he was fed up with the resistance his troops were experiencing in the Duoma area, just north of Damascus. Being the brutal dictator that he is, he decided to speed up the process with the usage of gas nerve/ chemical weaponry on his own people.

    The US Defense Secretary General Mattis is going through the verification process to determine if chemical/ nerve gas was used in this area around 7th April 2018. Then they will verify if these chemicals used match the stockpile that was supposed to dispose of ages ago.

    If the verification proves that the Syrian government was guilty of this atrocity, action will be taken.

    Hugs, Gronda

    Liked by 1 person

    • I concur with your opinion, and think it highly likely that al-Assad is behind the chemical attacks. However, it is always best to be absolutely certain before taking action, and any action needs to be considered from all angles before being carried out, for we are not playing with toys here, as Trump seems to think.

      Liked by 1 person

      • It is a very complex and convoluted situation there Jill, two very powerful local rivals are Iran and Saudi Arabia, with their own clients.
        The heart says ‘Bomb the crap out of the swine’, the head says ‘Remember your history’
        This is why we have professionals….and this horrifying mix of conflicts taxes the best of them.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Agreed, but I would add one thing. I am with you on remembering history … you know that I often bemoan that as time goes by, people forget the lessons of history. But on this one, we need to remember those lessons, but also remember that historically, we did not have the added threat of nuclear weapons that can obliterate the entire population of a nation AND a couple of leaders with twitchy fingers who think they are playing a game of Battleship … with the lives of innocent people at stake. ‘Tis why I am on the side of urging extreme caution, but obviously as of tonight, nobody listened to me. :/

          Liked by 1 person

          • True Jill, there is always the risk of a nuclear war. Where that starts and who would be the protagonists is another matter.
            As I write this the news and social sites will be buzzing about the rights and wrongs of the missile attacks on Syrian military sites. In this particular war enough warning was given to Assad and his Russian backers to move all of his important assets to Russian bases, which by the current rules are off limits. So the whole action was:
            1. Diplomatic- the Gesture part- solely for Russian consumption.
            2. Damage immovable construction sites. Small term gain.
            Now whether there are wise heads playing a long game or was this just something of its own momentum is also another matter.
            There is a lot of fuss ‘n feathers from my neighbours of the UK Left about ‘poor’ Syria being bombed…yadda-yadda and whether it was the CIA again (heck they must be busy!).
            The events in Syria are part of a mire, which everyone in Europe, USA, Russia and the regional states bear responsibility. There can only be a negotiated settlement, or a hard-core full on military intervention, and we can see from Iraq and Afghanistan this did not have a beneficial long-term result in those cases.
            The other alternative is a harsh one; we all draw back and let them all get on with it, until one side pummels the other down. But who will be able to harden their hearts to the tears of the innocents?

            Liked by 1 person

            • Sigh. Yes, those who are praising the missile strikes and those condemning them are equally loud and obnoxious today, and I’ve found it necessary to tune both out, for neither know of what they speak, for the most part. Though I spent 2 years studying the history and politics of the Middle East, it remains a conundrum to me, but the one thing I do know is that the West will never … NEVER … solve the problems of the Middle East. I think that Western leaders use it as a tool, a propaganda tool, to make themselves look wise and strong, even though they are not. What bothers me most is the loss of innocent lives, and in that, you are so right … “who will be able to harden their hearts to the tears of the innocents?” Not I, for sure. And so now, the world is in a state of waiting, wondering ‘what is next’, and all for what? 😞

              Liked by 1 person

  2. You give al-Assad more credit than I do, Jamie. Though I understand that it has not yet been confirmed that al-Assad was the guilty party in this one, but it was proven that he was in 2013, and I don’t think humanitarian values are his strong suit.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. How do you know it happened? Ohh right, an NGO known as “white helmets” who have received millions from UK government and work with Al Nusra. Said so? Gotta be true then? Even as the same Helmets have been receiving chemicals, Chlorine and others from governments like UK.

    President Assad is finally cleaning out the terrorists after 7 years of insurgency from Israel and other countries. So, he decided to gas his people? … r-i-g-h-t?

    Like other scripts, this does not add up. Cheers Jamie

    Liked by 1 person

I would like to hear your opinion, so please comment if you feel so inclined.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s