Syria: 11th Hour

If you have been following the events unfolding in relation to the use of chemicals to kill Syrians and the eagerness of U.S. President Obama to inflict some punishment on Syrian President Assad, you know that most people, including the majority of U.S. politicians, are opposed to a targeted bombing of Syria. While few have argued against the notion that any punishment would be well-deserved, there are simply too many unknowns of what will happen afterwards.

As Obama prepares to address the American population on television tonight and argue his case for support, the Russians have advanced some well-timed common sense by encouraging Assad to give up his chemical weapons to international control for their security and eventual destruction. At this point in time, Assad appears to be agreeable to the idea if it will forego a military strike.

While I can understand Obama’s interest in making the Assad regime accountable for their actions, the customary approach by the U.S. of dealing with problem regimes in a manner similar to the “Gunfight at the O.K. Corral” is becoming less effective with each passing year. Even though the Russians left Afghanistan with their tail between their legs, the U.S. felt they could do better with their high-noon gunfight thinking. It didn’t happen there nor did it happen in Iraq. It is also interesting to note that the U.S. never picks a fight with those having the big guns.

The Russians and Chinese, both with veto power at the U.N. Security Council, may have the right idea when they allow others to sort out their own problems.