White House Cautious On Chemical Attack
show comments
  • Fat_Man

    If by cautious you mean playing the three monkeys, yes they are cautious.

  • USNK2

    “Why Syria’s Southern Front Should Give the West Hope”
    Michael Weiss details, to the tribal and neighborhood level, who the Syrian rebels are, and, maybe there IS a moderate non-Islamist opposition to Assad.
    Very helpful read to start separating who is fighting who.
    Just like reading Al-Ahram helps to better understand the Bedouin realities in the Sinai.
    It’s not always about what Obama says

  • 1. Given the need of Islamists for martyrs and media, and given the video from Egypt two weeks ago in which one MB supporter shoots another MB supporter in the head as they march toward the Army, how do we know this was Assad & not al Qaeda?

    2. Why does the West deem it more moral to starve or kill people one-at-a-time than to kill them in bunches?

    3. Wars are won not by killing opposition fighters, who are only tools of policy, but by destroying the opposition polity. It is immature – and over the long run WORSE for both sides to pretend that “limited” war or counterinsurgency work. Who was a better ally 20 years on: Germany or Japan in 1965? Or Vietnam in 1995? Germany & Japan both were more prosperous, better educated and freer than ever before in their history. No one EVER will be able to say this about Vietnam, N Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Western leaders need to man-up and LEARN FROM HISTORY.

    • Corlyss

      “how do we know this was Assad & not al Qaeda?”
      The answer is irrelevant. Obama isn’t going to do anything except make more empty speeches. That is his forte.

      • bpuharic

        And the right wing solution in Iraq..how’d that work out?

    • Matt B

      It’s a fair question why the West should be upset about chemical weapons when Assad has been bombing, shelling and shooting civilians en masse for months. I think the principle is that this genie should never be let out of the bottle. It sets a precedent that could lead to more use, and death on a massive scale.

      I guess Obama shares your view, which is that not too many people were killed in this attack, relatively speaking, so no “red lines” have been crossed.

  • Tom Servo

    Assad could cook and eat a baby on live TV and Obama wouldn’t do anything about it. Still, in his manifest incompetence and mendacity, he may accidentally be doing the right thing. Muslims killing muslims – why should even one American soldier die to stop that from happening? They’re going to kill somebody, it’s all that they do, so best for the rest of us if they spend all their time and effort on each other.

    • Fred

      I certainly agree about Middle Easterners (I wouldn’t necessarily extend that to all Muslims; some are more civilized than others), but while keeping those savages killing each other instead of us may be a good idea, President Gelding made a bold and very public statement that we would not tolerate use of chemical weapons and when they were used, he dithered and equivocated. That makes the U.S. look weak and undependable in the eyes of allies and enemies alike.

  • Corlyss

    Punting to the UN=a declaration of disinterest.

    • bpuharic

      Has any right winger here told us WHY we SHOULD be interested?

  • BrianFrankie

    Oh, I think Assad pretty accurately has the measure of President Obama. As the Onion puts it:


© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.