Your feedback is important to us!
We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.
Disclaimer: Comments submitted by third parties on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual(s) whose content is submitted. The Daily Star accepts no responsibility for the content of comment(s), including, without limitation, any error, omission or inaccuracy therein. Please note that your email address will NOT appear on the site.
Alert: If you are facing problems with posting comments, please note that you must verify your email with Disqus prior to posting a comment. follow this link to make sure your account meets the requirements. (http://bit.ly/vDisqus)
The United States is not obstructing Assad's military progress.Then as now, Assad thinks he can slaughter civilians when and where he wishes, so long as he refrains from using certain kinds of chemicals. Boot acknowledges that Assad's assaults on civilian residential areas are war crimes. Would a Washington endorsement of Assad's incumbency, coupled with operational indifference to mass homicide, stop the merciless bombardments of hospitals, schools, marketplaces, mosques and apartment buildings? If the taboo has one practical use, it is this: If Assad decides to use sarin gas now, as he did in April 2017, the American military response would likely be instant.As was the case nearly a year ago, when President Donald Trump ordered cruise missile strikes in the wake of a regime chemical atrocity, the use of sarin now would presumably prompt a similar operation to neutralize some of Assad's weapons of mass terror: aircraft, artillery, rockets and the like.If he believes that letting Assad win is the ultimate answer, fine. He can rest assured there is nothing in the current policy of the U.S. government standing in the way of that outcome.
Trump, Mattis, Bolton: On the same page?
Putin’s refugee ploy to force the West to go through Assad
The Golan Heights: Avoiding an unforced error
FOLLOW THIS ARTICLE