Yesterday, I wrote a story suggesting that the angle about rebels using chemical weapons is a “conspiracy theory.”
Readers countered by pointing to more credible sources indicating that rebels likely attempted to use chemical weapons, didn’t know how to use them, and they blew themselves up in the process. The stories suggest that they were supplied with the chemical weapons by a Saudi prince and al Qaeda backer. All of that may be true and a second story line.
Today’s news by Bloomberg sources say that Obama’s timid response is a green light to Assad, not to use more chemical weapons, but to use conventional weapons to take down the Muslim Brotherhood.
If the civil war in Syria turns out to be one of a more secular and inclusive government versus a more radicalized rebel opposition, which would American’s favor in the long run? It may be that people would lean toward the more secular and inclusive government. However, there is a caveat, Bashar al Assad needs to depart.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State should not give up on the U.N. U.S. foreign policy needs to be more inclusive too.
“In 1982, the elder Assad killed as many as 30,000 people in the city of Hama to squelch a Muslim Brotherhood uprising. His brutality gave rise to a Syrian joke about the Angel of Death bringing judgment to Hafez al-Assad, only to have Syria’s secret police return him to God battered, bruised and empty-handed.
Now one possible immediate, unintended consequence of Obama’s move to Congress is that Assad “retaliates with an even more brutal crackdown in civilian areas where the opposition is operating,” said Sean Kay, director of the international relations program at Ohio Wesleyan University in Delaware, Ohio. “The red line has been chemical weapons; he might see that as a green light for conventional weapons.””