As
President Obama continues the push for intervention, a recent proposal by
Russia may avert a military strike. According to the NY Times, Russian
officials have floated the idea of securing the Syrian chemical weapons
stockpile under United Nation's control. Such a move would put these
weapons out of Assad’s reach. And it
would diminish the United States case for military intervention. Some argue this is a stalling tactic by
Syria's strongest ally. Others suggest it is a real breakthrough and may
prevent the United States from launching an attack. I have mixed feelings
about this development, however.
Slowly, I’m coming around to the idea that military intervention is a
bad idea. As the most powerful nation on
the planet, both militarily and economically, one would think the United States
could pressurize Syria in other ways.
Sure, the United States has imposed sanctions on Syria and frozen the assets
of many in the regime. We have asked our allies to do the same (basically, don’t trade
with them). But if we are serious about this, why not
expand the net? If China and Russia
continue to support Syria, why not revisit our trade status with them? Why?
Because, the trading relationship between China and the United States is
a sacred cow and our economy is too dependent upon the flow of inexpensive
goods from Asia. To openly question
Chinese foreign policy is to endanger American jobs and corporate profits. At the end of the day, a military strike is
cleaner and less disruptive to the American homefront. And most Americans are unwilling to put up with disruptions.
You can read about it here:
No comments:
Post a Comment