Syria chemical attacks: when science takes a back seat to morality

Obama and Kerry have taken a moral stance on the use of chemical weapons in Syria. The perception that requesting Congressional support illustrates US weakness is follyAs the UN scientists and weapons inspectors analyse the data retrieved from the purported site of the chemical attack in Damascus, there remains little doubt that Assad's regime in Syria bears responsibility for the horrific gassing which killed over 1,400 people on 21 August. In any case, since the UN inspectors do not plan to report on who is responsible for the murderous attacks, the scientific evidence that the inspectors will provide has become a moot point.On Friday 30 August, Secretary of State John Kerry laid out a wealth of unclassified information showcasing the involvement of Assad's regime in the massacres, and highlighting the US moral obligation to act. The following day, President Obama spoke with his usual eloquence, outlining the moral imperative of demonstrating to the Syrian regime (and other regimes that may harbour similar thoughts of using weapons of mass destruction) that its actions would not be condoned. President Obama did, however, indicate that he intended to first seek and obtain support from the American people through their representatives in Congress. Interestingly, and in my view erroneously, a variety of pundits, analysts and leaders in the Middle East think this decision reflects inherent weakness in the president. I disagree.President Obama is undoubtedly all too aware of the...
Source: Guardian Unlimited Science - Category: Science Authors: Tags: theguardian.com Blogposts Barack Obama US foreign policy Chemical weapons World news US politics Syria Obama administration John Kerry Science Source Type: news