Before I make my main point, here's a question that is niggling away at the back of what passes for my mind. Why is using gas as a weapon considered to be more evil than using high explosive? I admit that I, too, find it repulsive but I can't quite work out why. Anyway, the usual 'shlock-horror' news reports have followed Assad's decision to use it in an attack on his own Syrian people. The other question that hovers is why? It has provoked the 'The Donald' and, I would guess, 'Vlad the Impaler', too. Where's the gain?
Two writers, Stephen and Shoshana Bryen, ponder the question at The American Thinker but come to no convincing explanation. Assad's murderous attack came shortly after an American announcement that they were pulling back on confrontation with Assad in order to concentrate on their main aim of destroying ISIS. The Bryens suggest that with American pressure off, Assad was fearful that 'Vlad' would ditch him and perhaps let his country "cantonize" into separate ethnic regions just so long as Russian bases were safeguarded. In any event, Russian support for a separate Kurdish autonomy must have irked Assad enormously.
Now, Assad has provoked 'The Donald' into almost warlike fervour which will push 'Vlad' back into his arms. At least, that's the theory, or one of the theories, to explain an act of seemingly total irrationality. 'The Donald' needs to think his response through very, very carefully which will not be easy considering his tendency to lose defence advisers at an almost weekly rate! I can't help wondering if he is already pissed off with this politics lark which is already proving exceedingly tricky. Yes, he enjoys the pomp and circumstance but for how long will he put up with the sheer intractability of the problems he faces?