The Syria Debate
Sep. 7th, 2013 08:37 amIn the debate over whether to bomb Syria, which is still running hot on the Hill, some people argue that by failing to hit Syria, or by only hitting her lightly, America will lose a lot of credibility when it comes to standing up against attacks by chemical weapons and other weapons of mass-destruction. Ezra Klein provides a memorable answer.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
[N]o one — not Assad, not Iran, not North Korea — has any confusion about what would happen if they deployed chemical weapons against our troops or embassies, or if they handed them to terrorists who used them to attack us. They would be annihilated. And our credibility on this score is overwhelming: After 9/11, we invaded Afghanistan, which had given safe harbor to al Qaeda, and then we also invaded Iraq — just because we were so angry. Pinprick strikes against Assad change nothing about the incentives of using chemical weapons against the United States.
-- Ezra Klein
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
[N]o one — not Assad, not Iran, not North Korea — has any confusion about what would happen if they deployed chemical weapons against our troops or embassies, or if they handed them to terrorists who used them to attack us. They would be annihilated. And our credibility on this score is overwhelming: After 9/11, we invaded Afghanistan, which had given safe harbor to al Qaeda, and then we also invaded Iraq — just because we were so angry. Pinprick strikes against Assad change nothing about the incentives of using chemical weapons against the United States.
-- Ezra Klein
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>