Great Minds Think Alike

I was working on a post about the (alleged) use of chemical weapons in Syria. Then I saw this story on CNN, which makes the same point I was going to make. So here's my rushed version.

The total number of people killed during the Syrian unrest is around 100,000. The estimated number of dead from the (alleged) gas attack is around 1000.

Are we seriously considering military action because the last 1000 dead people are more valuable than the previous 99,000? Or is it because the manner of their death is so ... what? immoral? inhumane? threatening?

Dead is dead. What makes those 1000 different from the others? And is that difference significant enough to risk American lives?

Here's the CNN version.

The international effort to respond to a suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria begs the question: Why intervene now, and not earlier in the civil war?

More than 100,000 people have died in the conflict, which has raged for more than two years.

There have been massacres. Populated areas have been bombed. Blasts have targeted people lining up for food at bakeries. People have been decapitated.

But a single, horrifying attack has crossed what U.S. President Barack Obama called a "red line." Rebel officials say more than 1,300 people, including many women and children, died recently as a result of chemical weapons.

The United States believes Syria was behind it; rebels blame the Syrian government as well. The Syrian regime denies it, and some Syrians have told CNN they doubt their government used chemical weapons.

Given the massive human toll of attacks with conventional weapons, what makes this a potential turning point for the world to act?

And here's what Ralph Peters had to say.

Exactly which American vital security interests are at stake in Syria, Mr. President? Your credibility? Put a number on it. How many American lives is your blather about red lines worth?

Chemical weapons use? Horrible and illegal, a war crime. So is the mass slaughter of civilians. Is it really so much worse to be gassed than tortured to death by al Qaeda or burned alive in your church? Which is more important, the number of dead, or the means that killed them?

Let's make it real simple.

Assad heads up a Muslim regime that supports terrorist organizations.

His opponents are Muslim terrorists whose objective is to install a more ‘pure’ (read: extreme) Muslim regime.

Why on God's green earth should we do anything else than pop open a Shiner, sit back and relax, and watch those savages kill each other?