In reaction to the growing body of evidence that the Syrian government is using chemical weapons against rebel forces, President Obama has sought to clarify his “game-changer” comment. First, he wants to know the whole story: who, what, when, etc. His predecessor knows all to well the consequences of making bold decisions based on impartial information. However, the Syrian populace has not reacted the same way, and the public outcry over the international community’s lacksadasical response is intensifying. Assuming that the presence of such munitions is confirmed by the Obama administration, what does that mean for American involvment going forward? Directly arming the rebels would initially seem a logical move, however such a measure involves significant risk. The controversial strategies used by the Afghani freedom fighters during the ’80s were helped by direct American assistance, until the Reagan administration could not have it on their conscience to be directly abetting terrorism. There are a number of avenues the Obama administration
could pursue on the subject, so the challenge now is to decide which is best.
Remanants of a bomb blast that hit Damascus yesterday and killed 13 people