Writing for Truthout, William Rivers Pitt makes a full-throated argument against a U.S. military attack on Syria.
Pitt, who is certainly a lefty peacenik in case you take that as grounds to dismiss him, concedes that President Assad probably did use chemical weapons. Pitt spends most of his pixels arguing that the cost-benefit balance just doesn’t work out to overall U.S. benefits. If you can stand a heavy dose of sarcasm/cynicism about U.S. militarism, the whole piece is here.
But here’s a taste wherein Pitt pretends to mock his own argument that maybe there are situations that do not call for bombing:
Crazy, I know; this is America, after all, and our presidents like nothing more than to flip a few cruise missiles at other countries, combined with a few bombing sorties for good measure, because it’s a hell of a lot easier than actual statecraft. Besides, it looks good on television, and all those meanies in Congress can’t accuse the Commander in Chief of not doing anything. Oh, also, cruise missiles and bombs cost a lot, so if we pull the trigger on Syria, someone will get paid handsomely.
What ho, this we call “diplomacy,” right? Flatten a few buildings, blow some children sideways out of their kitchens during breakfast, take a victory lap on the Sunday morning talk shows…what could possibly go wrong?
Quite a bit, as it turns out.
