Who gets to the WMDs first? We or Al Queda?

Silvio Canto, Jr.
The reality is that someone is going to get to those WMDs currently protected by the Syrian army.  Someone will control them.  The question is whether it will be our side or Al Qaeda.

The latest is that the Syrian PM was attacked in what he thought was safe Damascus. 

Well, nothing is safe in Syria and specially not those WMDs that Al Qaeda is desperately trying to get their hands on.  The UK press is all over this story:

"The fight for al-Safira is no ordinary turf war, however, and the prize can be found behind the perimeter walls of the heavily-guarded military base on the edge of town. Inside what looks like a drab industrial estate is one of Syria's main facilities for producing chemical weapons - and among its products is sarin, the lethal nerve gas that the regime is now feared to be deploying in its bid to cling to power"

Al Qaeda will challenge the aforementioned walls.  They want those WMDs because it gives them the power to diminish their opposition. WMDs also give you leverage, as North Korea is showing. The Israelis also fear that those weapons could go to Hezbollah.

We have two choices.  We can say that the US public is tired of war and watch Al Qaeda overrun the walls.  Or, we can make a military statement and keep Al Qaeda from those weapons.

I am not saying that this easy or simple.  We have a son in the US Army so these discussions of military involvement are not theoretical in our home. 

There are risks and consequences both ways.  My point is that the days of "leading from behind" and hoping a speech will solve every problem are indeed over.

Who gets the weapons?  I hope that we have a president who will lead and explain to the nation that we can not allow those weapons to fall in the hands of terrorist groups.

Well, I hope that we have such a president because we really need one.

 

 

 

 


The reality is that someone is going to get to those WMDs currently protected by the Syrian army.  Someone will control them.  The question is whether it will be our side or Al Qaeda.

The latest is that the Syrian PM was attacked in what he thought was safe Damascus. 

Well, nothing is safe in Syria and specially not those WMDs that Al Qaeda is desperately trying to get their hands on.  The UK press is all over this story:

"The fight for al-Safira is no ordinary turf war, however, and the prize can be found behind the perimeter walls of the heavily-guarded military base on the edge of town. Inside what looks like a drab industrial estate is one of Syria's main facilities for producing chemical weapons - and among its products is sarin, the lethal nerve gas that the regime is now feared to be deploying in its bid to cling to power"

Al Qaeda will challenge the aforementioned walls.  They want those WMDs because it gives them the power to diminish their opposition. WMDs also give you leverage, as North Korea is showing. The Israelis also fear that those weapons could go to Hezbollah.

We have two choices.  We can say that the US public is tired of war and watch Al Qaeda overrun the walls.  Or, we can make a military statement and keep Al Qaeda from those weapons.

I am not saying that this easy or simple.  We have a son in the US Army so these discussions of military involvement are not theoretical in our home. 

There are risks and consequences both ways.  My point is that the days of "leading from behind" and hoping a speech will solve every problem are indeed over.

Who gets the weapons?  I hope that we have a president who will lead and explain to the nation that we can not allow those weapons to fall in the hands of terrorist groups.

Well, I hope that we have such a president because we really need one.