We Attacked Syria, Now What? Part 1
The US attacked Syria due to their use of chemical weapons, but the question has to remain, what now? Are we planning on staying long term, was this only to punish for using chemical weapons, something nations since the First World War finished that has been rejected by all nations or has it? If we are going to commit troops, attack, and risk our military and nation to what could easily be turned into a much wider conflagration that could easily spiral out of control to WW3, we must ask, “What are we trying to achieve?” This article looks into the reason given for the attack, the use of chemical weapons, on the next one we will look at the political ramifications.
As a grandchild of a man who fought in WW1, my grandfather suffered throughout his life due to the effects these attacks had on his mind, he was gassed three times by mustard gas in the First World War in France. He lived a long life, died 3 weeks shy of his 109th birthday, but the way he left lived much to be desired. The after effects on both his physical and mental health plagued him until he passed, I for one find the use of these weapons detestable, yet they still are produced in great numbers, if they are illegal, why are they still being produced?
Nixon in 1969 denounced the manufacture of chemical weapons, halted all transportation of them, but by that time the United States had such vast quantities of these weapons that we even today are still destroying them. Russia is no better, neither is China, while Russia is destroying its stockpile as well, China has never moved in that direction.
There are other nations that have never signed, such as North Korea, Israel (due to Egypt, Syria [they claim to have had disposed of their stockpile, they clearly have not], South Sudan, and it is known that Hezbollah has stockpiles of these weapons), Israel has openly stated when they destroy their chemical weapons it will be more then happy to sign and destroy its own, if it has any (It will not disclose).
But the biggest problem with chemical weapons is not Israel, it has never used them, it is not North Korea (their refusal is why all US forces have to go through training for dealing with chemical weapon attacks), it is China who still possesses huge stocks of chemical weapons and has made little effort to destroy them.
There is also Iran and Iraq, although both have said they have destroyed their stockpiles, and I believe Iraq has, Iran has been shown and had actions taken against them for trying to sneak in chemicals used to make these weapons.
To date it is believed that these countries either have chemical weapons or have the means to quickly manufacture them if needed, also have the means to weaponize and deliver them.
- North Korea
Sadly I don’t see some of these nations giving up their arms, some due to a need for deterrence, the refusal of their enemies to come to the table would leave them little alternatives but strike with nuclear weapons if chemical weapons are used against them, but we would do well to get these last nations and bring them into the way of the rest of the world to rid ourselves of this terrible legacy left from the first world war.
If we went in and attacked Syria to show that no more will use of these weapons be allowed, I guess I have no issue with this, it is not a good idea to use these on anyone, it outright a crime against humanity to use them against your own people, makes them no better then the fascists who used chemicals to wipe out and kill their unwanted population, resulting in the end with the holocaust and millions more dying due to these evil weapons.
When these are gone, I would love to next see the removal of biological weapons, then maybe nukes?