The Stupid 'Smoking Gun' Argument on Syria
Critics on the left and rightare arguing that the lack of a "smoking gun" tying President Bashar al-Assad to the chemical-weapons attack near Damascus last week is a reason to back off from a missile strike against the Syrian regime. Actually, the possibility that some underling bears responsibility might be the best justification I've seen yet for U.S. military action.
Listen, there are plenty of good reasons not to attack Syria, and my colleague Jeffrey Goldberg has spelled out most of them, here and here and here. Basically, I'd see any short-term, narrowly targeted attack as little more than a fit of pique by a superpower painted into a corner by President Barack Obama's "red-line" comment last year.
This is no time for symbolic bellicosity, especially at $1.4 million per Tomahawk missile. If we are really going to use our military might against Syria -- and that is a big "if" -- we should go all-in and commit to regime change, getting rid of a murderous despot under the thumb of Iran at a vital geopolitical crossroads. Yes, that would mean sustained air and missile support and a free flow of arms to a group of rebels we maybe cannot trust; even, perhaps, U.S. boots on the ground.
To continue reading this article you must be a Bloomberg Professional Service Subscriber.
If you believe that you may have received this message in error please let us know.
- Trump's Re-Election Edge Is Greatly Exaggerated
- Piketty's Inequality Theory Gets Dinged
- Stick With Numbers When Judging Trump's Rally
- The Harder Brexit Gets, the More Necessary It Seems
- Think the U.S. Has a Facebook Problem? Look to Asia
- Are Blockchain Diplomas the Real Deal?
- Talking North Korea and Iran With Israel's Rocket Man