A
military attaché in Baghdad in 1988 recalls, "The Iraqis never told us
that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew.”
The
White House, according to declassified CIA files, “applied a cold calculus
three decades ago to Hussein's widespread use of chemical weapons against his
enemies and his own people. The Reagan administration decided that it was
better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And
even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and
condemnation would be muted.”
Are
Americans so much more sensitive now, or did 9/11 change everything, including
all those vaunted Middle East lines in the sand?
As
Obama prepares a punitive strike for behavior Reagan tacitly approved, how much
more deeply mired are we in the sectarian quagmire that is destined to grow
worse, no matter what we do?
Whether
for political or (forgive the word) moral reasons, a Republican Congress
threatens the President with “the money card” of sequestration if he moves
against Syria. “Buy-in from Congress and the American people is critical if
he’s going to act,” warns St. Boehner.
“The
Syrian civil conflict is both a proxy war and a combustion point for spreading
waves of violence,” observes David Brooks. “This didn’t start out as a
religious war. But both Sunni and Shiite power players are seizing on religious
symbols and sowing sectarian passions that are rippling across the region. The
Saudi and Iranian powers hover in the background fueling each side.”
How
and where do we draw lines in the sand against that?
No comments:
Post a Comment