As I have noted previously, one can't take the comparisons to our invasion of Iraq precisely. The current crisis in Syria is certainly different--there may have been a real chemical attack vs. the absence of WMD in 2003--but the drumbeats for war feel familiar. I warned yesterday that the U.S. was now repeating one move in 2003--questioning value of UN inspections, claiming they come too late, and then asking the inspectors to leave for their own safety since we might start bombing at any time. This basically worked then, if you want to look at it that way.
Now today comes word that the second day of UN inspections were called off after inspectors said their safety was threatened there. And the culprits? The UN confirms it was the rebels. Who for some reason don't want the inspections now? And are just buying time until a U.S. missile strike on, say, Thursday? Yesterday Sec of State Kerry suggested that the sniper fire that hindered the inspectors came from the Assad side--which he probably knew was false or unproven but made the charge anyway.
1 comment:
The linked story states that rebels "failed to guarantee their security." I'm not sure that amounts to a threat. It might just amount to a factual statement. We know that the rebels are not a unified coalition, and they can hardly guarantee the UN inspectors' security from attacks by the regime. I'm just not sure anything in that article supports the speculation that the rebels are actively trying to delay UN inspectors.
Post a Comment