The use of chemical weapons against civilians is inexcusable. However, it is not easy to justify intervention in a foreign civil war, much less U.S. action without international support. Let's not forget our past experience under similar circumstances.
Days before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, younger President Bush referred to a chemical attack on Halabja to characterize Saddam Hussein's nature and the kind of threat he presented to the world. While his statement expressed a laudable moral objection to chemical warfare, the earlier chapter of this story cannot be ignored.
Despite knowledge of chemical weapons use by Iraq, the Reagan-Bush administration removed Iraq from the list of states sponsoring terrorism in 1982, allowing American companies to sell biochemical precursor material to Iraq for the rest of the decade. When 5,000 civilians in Halabja were killed with chemical weapons in 1988, the U.S. didn't seek to degrade Mr. Hussein's chemical warfare capability. The Senate passed the Prevention of Genocide Act imposing sanctions for the Halabja attack, which the Reagan-Bush administration effectively blocked with a threatened veto.
With this history, and the lack of an urgent direct threat to U.S. interests, we should not act hastily in the spirit of younger President Bush circa 2003, nor excuse Syria on the precedent set by Reagan-Bush circa 1988. There is plenty of room in between for a decisive and morally defensible response.
Paul Adel
Clifton Park