Apparently distressed over the British Parliament’s decision not to participate in a limited, or otherwise, attack on Syria for alleged use on Aug. 21 of sarin gas by the Bashar al-Assad regime against the rebels and Syrian civilians, the Economist’s latest, Aug. 31 issue, in its editorial, “Hit him hard,” has appealed to President Obama to rain down missiles for a week on the dictator’s command-and-control centers, including his palaces.
“From the Pentagon to Britain’s parliament, plenty of realpolitikers argue that doing nothing is the only prudent course,” the editorial said, and then pointed out that “doing nothing carries risks even bigger.” Needling Obama’s huge ego and his unstable state of mind, the editorial went on to egg Obama on to launch into yet another war by saying Assad had “after all stepped across Mr. Obama’s ‘red line’ several times by using these weapons on a smaller scale—and found that Mr. Obama and his allies blinked.” “An American threat, especially over WMD, must count for something; it is hard to see how Mr. Obama can eat his words without the superpower losing credibility with the likes of Iran and North Korea.”
In conclusion, going through the motions of the usual British feigned “fair play,” “playing cricket,” and all that, the Economist said, “before the missiles are fired, Mr. Obama must give Mr. Assad one last chance; a clear ultimatum to hand over his chemical weapons entirely within a very short period. The time for inspections is over. If Mr. Assad gives in, then both he and his opponents will be deprived of such poisons—a victory for Mr. Obama.”
What if Assad refuses that proposal? The editorial said, “he should be shown as little mercy as he has shown to the people he claims to govern. If an American missile then hits Mr. Assad himself, so be it. He and his henchmen have only themselves to blame.”