Chemical Warfare: Never good but there could be a different outcome

On many levels this is out of my purview. However, in the early ’60’s I was an officer in what was then called the Chemical Corps. I spent the first year of my service running a chemical combat support platoon primarily stationed in Fort Ord, California. Then, clearly, I saluted somebody wrong, and spent two summers in the desert and the winter in between in Alaska and some other places testing various Chemical, Nuclear and Biological weapons delivery systems.  All of these were bad weapons.  I am not sure there is such a thing as a good weapon.

The Chemical Weapons Convention banning the use of chemical weapons (not biological) and calling for destruction of existing weapons went into force in 1997 after the initial discussions on the ban began in 1968.  Syria is not a signatory to the Convention.

I am not sure what a limited strike does to deal with this problem other than having, for sure, unintended consequences.  Also, are we simply saying that if conventional weapons had been used to kill 1400+ would we not care?  As I said, Chemical weapons are bad, and with a very few exceptions, the world agrees.

As opposed to more death and destruction as a retaliatory punishment, wouldn’t it make sense to use this time while Congress debates to present the fully documented case to the world, garner universal support against the use, universally demand  an apology and recompense from Syria to the families affected, and a promise not to use such weapons ever again? What is really in the interest of all in this instance? It is hard to believe that this was at the direction of Assad because of the stupidity of the action. If so, there needs to be the full mea culpa. However, if this was an attack generated and ordered within the military ranks, blame can be directed and action taken.

One cannot bring back the lives lost, nor for that matter the 100,000 lives previously lost.  However, why not turn this action into a reason for reaching a political solution as opposed to a continuation of the bloodshed using whatever weapons are available or provided.  It is in some ways an opening for the Assad regime.  More military action involving more participants will not have a good outcome.  This approach will surely sound naíve and wimpy to some.  It is one person’s viewpoint.  The killing by whatever means needs to stop.