There is a certain political and patriotic foolishness that develops when a nation becomes a superpower. America, the country in which I was born, has seen this political and patriotic foolishness on many occasions. America thought it could go into Vietnam in the 1960s to stem the tide of communism in Southeast Asia. This was a brutal case of folly borne out of the idea that communism as practiced in China and the Soviet Union would destroy the American capitalist way of life, putting racial and cultural enemies on a collision course toward civil war. Once again in 2003, the fresh fear of apostate Islamic terrorism caused the United States to blunder into a war with Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti. This war was based on the lie that Hussein’s government possessed or were seeking to possess weapons of mass destruction which he could use on his own people or his regional neighbors.

Today we know that nearly 1,500 people were killed by a chemical weapon attack in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta. It is widely held that these attacks were coordinated and carried out by the Syrian military. From time to time a difficult decision comes around where international law must be upheld I feel that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government is one of those cases.

The use of chemical weapons is a war crime; but despite calls from Progressives that I admire like Florida Representative Alan Grayson that America not “go to war” in Syria, international rule of law mandates that someone be brought to justice, by judicial or military means, for this crime against humanity. TEA Party groups from around the United States now are calling for President Barack Obama and the US Congress to do nothing to redress the actions of the Syrian government against its own people. While the United States must not become the world’s cop it also must not lose credibility as a force for the rule of law by sitting on its hands.

“How can the president be so sure of the situation in Syria, and so clueless about Benghazi? Too many questions, not nearly enough answers.”–Mark Kevin Lloyd, Virginia Tea Party Patriot Federation

Those people you see in this link heckling Senator John McCain of Arizona are very likely the very same people who for more than a decade have trumpeted American patriotism and support for the troops while blindly following behind the misguided reasons for the American invasion of Iraq. Now the TEA Party finds itself in a position where they, for political reasons [not reasons of realpolitik], are in opposition to anything that President Obama suggests. Embedded in this opposition now is a direct animosity to anyone in their political party who proposes siding with the rule of law and allowing a limited engagement against Syria. My question to the TEA Party is where were all of you guys in the winter of 2002?

Qu’ul cuda praedex nihil!

Sarah Bloch, D.S.V.J., J.F., O.Q.H [Jur.]
Amici Bax Demvolu Comnu
Politics & Culture Wars Managing Editor
The Dis Brimstone-Daily Pitchfork
112 Colnu 2 AS


  1. Sara,

    Under international law, only the UNSC can authorize strikes against a sovereign nation for violating the chemical weapons ban.

    I’m opposed to the US attacking unilaterally, and I am most definitely not a teabagger.

    • sarahbloch Says:

      Ser Daryl I would prefer that Samantha Power seek a UNSC resolution but you and I both know that that is going nowhere. What I fear more than some sort of retaliation by Iran or a wider war developing in the region is what happens when another nation decides it’s okay to use BZ or Sarin against its own population?

      • Serious question– Why is it okay to blow up tens of thousands of civilians but gassing them is beyond the pale? I think the world needs to get over the whole WMD thing. Killing people who have done nothing to you and pose no immediate and existential threat to you is immoral. The method is mostly irrelevant.

      • sarahbloch Says:

        Ser Daryl Nothing ever that involves Human Beings happens all at once. If it were left to me there would be no war because there is no cause for war. When I was asked to offer my opinion it was based on the premise of the reality that you have and that Syria has. Syria poses no immediate threat but still I have to disagree about methods of killing in a world that is supposed to be civilized.

  2. Sara,

    Do you think that by killing Syrians (and we will kill many Syrians) with cruise missiles that we are somehow better than Assad who kills them with bombs and Sarin? Will Assad care about the Syrians we kill any more than he cares about the ones he kills?

    Syria is not a signatory to the chemical weapons ban. AFAIK, he broke a taboo. And a relatively stupid one, at that. Chemical weapons are horrible and maim and kill indiscriminately. But so do landmines. And guess who refuses to rule out their use despite an international taboo.

    We are no better than they, and we’ll prove it (again) if we kill a bunch of Syrians to prove to Assad that he crossed a “red line.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: