Both Republicans and Democrats seem to think that Obama should have followed through on bombing Assad's center because of the red line drawn if Assad used poison gas. This surprises me. I can understand if people thought Obama didn't get enough for calling off the bombing, that is that Assad's willingness to give up his poison gas store for not bombing was not enough. But I have never heard of this argument being used.
We seem to agree that dying or being injured from poison gas is worse than being blown apart or injured by explosives. So it sounds like the deal reached was pretty good.
I suspect that most people believe that Assad would have been killed or his regime would be fatally injured by the bombing; however, I know of no case where a dictator has been killed by an air attack: not Saddam, not Qaddafi or, for that matter, not Hitler or Mussolini either.
Yes, in bombing we could have destroyed a lot of buildings and killed a lot of people, mostly non-combatants, but almost certainly we would not have killed Assam or stopped the poison gas attacks. In fact, I suspect they would have increased.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment