[akv]

Originally Posted by Richard

The way I see it:

1 - Syria has a chemical weapons program (nerve agents).
2 - Syria is in the midst of an internal civil war with external agents involvement.
3 - Nobody is sure who may or may not be in control of those weapons now.
4 - Chemical weapons were used against its civilian population.
5 - Nobody is claiming responsibility for their use.
6 - UN CBR investigative teams are now on the ground seeking answers to the who, what, when, where, how, and/or why of their use.
7 - The international community, and the West in particular, has a long-standing position against the proliferation and use of such weapons.
8 - Our national interests lie solely in those interests as a senior member of the international community.
9 - In the past, we and others in the community, have "looked the other way" from countries exhibiting such behavior when in our "interests" as well as "spanked" countries for similar behaviors when in our "interests" to exhibit a higher moral authority to do so.
10 - There is precedent for using a combined sea-air campaign with adjunct UN forces to bring about a change to a country's "interests" when such an event occurs, however, the results are mixed.
11 - It's a complicated matter, with equally compelling arguments for both inaction and action upon the part of the international community, and fueled by several decades of inconclusive direct involvement on our part in and against that particular geographical area of the world.
13 - I'm glad I don't have to make the decision and hope we can live with what our NCA and Congress decide, however, after many of our decisions in that region over the past century and the on-going fallout from those actions, I think whatever we do will have the effect of being yet another well-intentioned but pyrrhic act providing yet more tinder to inflame the already vehemently partisan and overheated rhetoric of the international political arena and its sidekick, the blogosphere.

Richard,

Good points all, Syria is one heck of A tar baby. Respectfully, my $.02 I can't see how this will not evolve into US boots on the ground. Retired General Nyland was just on CNN asking, at the point and time we know there are chemical weapons being used there, and there are AQ elements among the rebels, don't we need to make sure they don't get their hands on this stuff. How can this be done solely through air strikes? The rebels winning could be even more dangerous for US interests. I know US forces will perform their duty well as always, but how does this mission not get muddled from degrading Syrian WMD capability to nation building with restrictive ROE against a ruthless opponent?