Pages

Sunday, September 1, 2013

Syria and WMD

The world is once again focused on the Middle East. And once again, it's Syria.

This time, the Syrian government is accused of using chemical weapons in an attack on the rebels. Reports indicate that hundreds, mostly civilians, were recently killed and injured in a WMD attack on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta.

It is undeniable that a chemical weapons attack occurred. It is undeniable that hundreds are dead and hundreds are injured. It is undeniable that this is a cruel atrocity worthy of international scorn and, many think, punishment.

However, do not believe that it is undeniable that the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad committed the atrocity. He is certainly capable of it and the Syrians have the resources to do it. What's lacking is the motive.

In the last few weeks, things have been going Assad's way. His government seems to be gaining ground against the rebel coalition. The world's attention has been diverted from Syria's civil war to Egypt's civil struggle.

Why, when he is at least holding his own, if not starting to win, would he choose now to perpetrate the one act -- the use of chemical or biological weapons against his own people -- that would return the world's attention to Syria and guarantee its wrath would be poured upon him? It just doesn't make sense.

And when you take into account the fact that the Syrian rebel opposition is now dominated by al-Qaeda -- an organization that also has absolutely no qualms about using chemical weapons to further its goals -- it's enough to give any rational person reason to pause. The nagging truth is that the rebels are the party in this conflict that stands to gain most from a chemical attack blamed on the Syrian government. That's because it will almost surely provoke some sort of Western intervention in the civil war that may tip the balance in favor of al-Qaeda and their opposition allies.

President Obama and British Prime Minister Cameron have been working to secure a United Nations-approved military intervention in the conflict. However, on Thursday the British parliament conducted a preliminary vote and decided to say, "No, thank you" to the UK's involvement in an armed response.

We're now waiting to see what the Obama administration will choose to do and if it will go it alone or seek Congressional approval. Suffice it to say there's plenty of skepticism to go around. U.S. law seems to require the President to consult the Congress before committing our military forces to a conflict that does not threaten us directly. However, he chose to participate in the Libyan intervention without Congressional approval and he's suffered no repercussions from that decision.

One thing, however, is that any sort of international military intervention in Syria will certainly put Israel -- who has intentionally stayed on the sidelines and kept its mouth shut -- at great risk. We all know that Assad has threatened to attack Israel if outside powers attempt to intervene in the civil war. Now, a leading military figure in Iran has threatened to destroy Israel if the West meddles in Syria.

So we need to earnestly pray for the peace and safety of Israel as well as pray for God to grant our leaders wisdom in dealing with this delicate situation. We agree that the world community cannot let gas attacks go unanswered, but we must be careful to get the facts right before we act. And we must be careful not to act in a way that strengthens the hand of al-Qaeda.

No comments: