The United States has drawn a line in the sand; whenever,
a country uses chemical weapons-particularly on innocent
civilians. The Senate is poised to authorize President Obama
to use force while the road to approval by the House of
Representatives is more uncertain.
The evidence depicts photos of dead Syrian men, women and
children. Clearly, the most basic tenets of the United Nations
have been violated seemingly by Syria using chemical weapons
to kill its own people . Despite this evidence, Assad has denied
the use of the chemical weapons in a recent interview. If his version
of the story is to be believed, who is responsible for the use of
Along comes the chance for a way out of this dilemma.
The Russians have indicated a willingness to broker a
deal by getting Syria to destroy its stockpile of
chemical weapons. If this offer is real and verifiable, there
could be a way out of a potential showdown.
For the United States to intervene and neutralize Syrian
chemical weapons, there would be a risk of confrontations
with the Russians, as well as reprisals from a host of
antagonists. In addition, the USA could become an unwitting
ally of Al Qaeda by intervening to neutralize Assad's
stockpile of chemical weapons. Some policy analysts advise
against our involvement because they can foresee a potential
conflagration with no easy end in sight. The Brits have voted
down the chance to get involved side-by-side with the USA.
Shortly, President Obama will provide more detailed
guidance on how the Administration intends to proceed.
Secretaries Kerry and Clinton both agree on the potential need
for our involvement. There is an essential agreement in the
United States Senate and some House members like Congressman
Peter King are on board also. The preferred route is negotiation
so that President Obama can claim realistically that the
certain threat of force was dispositive in bringing the
impasse to a successful and non-violent conclusion.