From Robert Reich:
Cliff notes on a potentially disastrous decision:
(1) Were Syrian civilians killed by chemical weapons?
(2) How many?
(3) Was Assad responsible?
Probably but not definitely.
(4) Should the world respond?
(5) What’s the best response?
Economic sanctions and a freeze on Syrian assets.
(6) What are the advantages of bombing Syria with missiles? (a) Highly visible response, (...b) no American troops on the ground.
(7) What are the disadvantages?
(a) Syrian civilians will inevitably be killed,
(b) it will fuel more anti-American, anti-Western sentiment, thereby increasing the ranks of terrorists in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East,
(c) our involvement will escalate if Assad or others use additional chemical weapons or engage in retribution against the us or Israel,
(d) we have no exit strategy,
(e) most of our allies aren’t with us, and we can’t be the world’s policeman everywhere,
(f) it will distract us from critical problems at home,
(g) the Syrian rebels are not our friends.
Question from me:
Don't economic sanctions first, make sense?
Links: Robert Reich | Facebook