Let’s not forget Iraq

There is a lot of activity surrounding the reported use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government in that country’s years-long civil war. What is important is remembering the lessons learned in Iraq, in order to avoid repeating the same mistakes.

In the case of Libya, President Obama showed patience and an ability to work with European allies to limit America’s participation. This should again be the strategy, even though this case is more complicated because of the conflict, the geography and the main participants.

President Bashar al-Assad has shown that he is a relentless dictator. On the other hand, the opposition is made up of a mosaic of organizations, with some having ties to al-Qaida and Muslim extremism. In short, it is impossible to predict Syria’s future if Assad is overthrown—a good reason for the U.S. not to want to get involved in ousting Assad.

However, there is a wave of neoconservative pressure in Washington, which now supports intervening in Syria with the same enthusiasm with which it backs the disastrous operation in Iraq. For now, and we hope this continues, putting U.S. troops in the middle of this civil war is unthinkable.

Nevertheless, the use of chemical weapons has drawn international condemnation for a long time, after the horrors of World War I. This makes it harder for Obama to keep his position of staying away from the conflict, after saying that their use would be a game-changer.

Consultations with Congress, tough words from top administration officials and international activity all point to the high probability of limited, punitive missile strikes to discourage the Assad government from using these weapons. This is the intention.

But before that, let’s make sure that the information is cozrrect and that there are real answers to the questions that military strikes of this type bring up. That is the first lesson from Iraq.