As Nobel Peace Prize winner President Barack Obama campaigns for another war, we should be asking whether or not the U.S. should engage Syria.
What would be the most compelling reason? In my opinion, the only reason would be to enforce the Geneva Protocol, signed by the U.S. as a member of the League of Nations in 1925, and signed by Syria in 1968. This international law forbidding the use of chemical and biological weapons covers wars as wells as internal conflicts, as decided by an appellate chamber in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in 1995.
Should a signatory violate this law, the U.N. must punish the offending tyrant, lest the law becomes meaningless and the enforcing body laughingly impotent while murderous dictators continue to wipe out people with WMD’s.
Basically, slaughtering around 1,000 people with chemical or biological weapons is illegal. Bashar al-Assad knows this, which many theorize is the reason he murdered that many Syrians with a chemical weapon.
If he was to butcher rebels with illegal weapons while the world is watching, the theory goes, it would send the message, “no one, not any other country or alliance of countries, can save you rebels so you’d better give up.”
The operative word is “theory.”
President Obama and Secretary of State John “I was against starting a war against a country until I was for starting a war against a country” Kerry insist evidence incriminating Assad is “undeniable.”
Problem is, there is no evidence the Assad government did this, even though it’s likely.
There was another time when WMD possession was “undeniable.” Former Sen. Kerry may recall those years. In fact, WMD’s in Syria may have originated in Iraq, sent to Syria at the beginning of the U.S. invasion as reported by an Iraqi general and a couple of colonels.