Kristof Still Wants War

In today's column Kristof makes this argument:
A missile strike on Syrian military targets would result in no supplemental budget, so money would come from the existing military pot. In any case, the cost of 100 missiles would be about $70 million — far less than the $1 billion annual rate that we’re now spending on humanitarian aid for Syrians displaced by worsening war and by gas attacks. If a $70 million strike deters further gas attacks and reduces the ability of President Bashar al-Assad to bomb civilians, that might actually save us money in humanitarian spending.Also notice how he is charging Assad with "presiding over" deaths of 100,000, even though most counts claim the rebels have slain up to half that number. And admits "some" of the rebels "are vile." Maybe three or four, you know. Artful.
Finally, he dishonestly ignores the fact that if Obama had followed his call last week (and that of his colleague, Bill Keller) and started firing cruise missles then we would not have the current agreement to get rid of all of Syria's chemical agents without U.S.-caused bloodshed--which our bombing would not have come close to accomplishing. Also, this agreement will, if carried out, eliminate chance of those weapons falling into al-Qaeda hands. Also, there will be no Assad retaliatory strikes and our bombs will not inflame much of the rest of the Muslim world against us.
In a tweet yesterday, Kristof crowed that the "threat" of bombing that he backed was working and this produced the Syria/Russia offer. Fair enough except--if Obama had actually gone ahead with the bombing already, as Kristof wished, there would have been no such offer.
Published on September 14, 2013 19:55
No comments have been added yet.