Conventional warfare can be equally destructive

After 100,000 deaths in the Syrian civil war, why has this government now entered the fray after suspicions that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons to kill 1,500 insurgents? The consequences of any revolt result in the loss of both military and civilian lives and history has proved the manner of the killings don’t really matter with opposing forces. But it begs these questions: Why intervene now after so many have been killed? Have we categorically classified chemical weapons WMD’s no matter how many casualties they cause? Do we consider the use of them more terrifying even when they inflict minimal damage versus maximum destruction of a population by conventional warfare? Where is the rationale? Where is the logic? Where is the moral high ground?

James D. Cook

Schaumburg