condoning the use of chemical weapons on a civpop is a slippery slope though

1) There's the ethics/moral issues around whether the international community should turn a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons on a civilian populace. Assuming the West releases the intel that proves Assad's forces were responsible, it would be morally repugnant for the UN to not do anything. Given the UN doesn't have a great track record in things, morally I think that leaves NATO, the EU, and the rest of the civilised world to step up to the plate. I'm not sure there's much point in having things like the UN if it doesn't actually act when things like this happen.

Then there's the lesser reasons...

2) As a point of principle, NATO has always equated the use of chemical weapons with the use of other weapons of mass destruction in terms of its stated 'red lines' - ie a chemical attack is treated on a par with a nuclear attack in terms of seriousness. That was always the line during the Cold War and used as the basis of planning by both the West and Russia If we start eroding that principle, then the deterrent effect is lost and we will start to see more and more use of chemical weapons. Granted it's never likely to bother you or me, but there are Governments out there who would see it as an attractive choice of weapon on their own people.

3) The West (France, UK, USA) has been sabre rattling for so long that our bluff has been called. We either step up and make good on the rhetoric about red lines, or we back down, lose 'face', and pretty much admit to Syria, Iran, N Korea etc that if you have the means to defend yourself, then when push comes to shove, the West won't act. I think on balance that that would be a bad thing - although its a shame that we've backed otuselves into that corner over Syria.

4) If Syria is out of the picture, Hezbollah loses its main backer and supply lines and will be seriously weakened. The US and Israel would quite like that.

5) Syria is Russia's access to the Mediterranean and the only friendly port for the Black Sea Fleet in the Med. I suspect NATO would quite like that to not be the case.

6) France sees Syria as part of its sphere of influence due to historical ex-colonial reasons, the UK is recently pretty desperate to show that the UK & France can work well together internationally and without having to take the USA's lead all the time. It has generally been France and the UK that has made the running on Syria in terms of the public rhetoric, the USA has been less gung-ho on this one to date.

Everything hinges on point #1. Points #2 to #6 are why the US, UK & France have been pushing it and why they are keen to press the importance of #1.

I'd rather we left the lot well alone, but if Assad has used chemical weapons then the international community has a duty to act (unfortunately) and unfortunately the UK/France/USA will use #1 as the pretext to go further than absolutely necessary in the pursiut of some of #2 to #6.

Posted By: CWC, Aug 28, 15:31:55