The debate we should be having on Syria

September 3, 2013

On Tuesday evening, President Barack Obama boarded Air Force One, departed for Sweden and left behind a looming political disaster. Despite the endorsement of Republican and Democratic House leaders, many members of Congress remain deeply skeptical about the president’s proposal to carry out cruise missile strikes in Syria. And they should be.

A few dozen missile strikes will not alter the military balance in Syria’s civil war. They will not punish Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to the point where it moves him to the bargaining table. The Syrian autocrat is engaged in a ruthless fight for survival. Obama is not. As long as that dynamic continues, limited military action will have a limited impact.

Tomahawk cruise missiles are the latest wonder weapon to be used to lull Americans into thinking they can have war without cost. (For now, they’ve replaced drones.) In a sign of just how limited the American effort will be, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee drafted a resolution Tuesday night that would limit any military action to sixty days, with one thirty day extension.

Under the best-case scenario outlined by administration officials, American destroyers will lob a few dozen missiles at Syria late next week. Washington’s credibility will be magically restored. And there will be little pain, risk or casualties for Americans.

That is wishful thinking.

At the same time, opponents of military action on the left and right argue that we can ignore what is happening in Syria. The Sunnis who make up 70 percent of Syria’s population and their Gulf backers will give up, some argue. Or if Assad wins, a magnanimous Hezbollah and Iran will not be emboldened by his successful use of chemical weapons.

In truth, Syria is on a path to become a failed state split between Sarin-wielding Alawites and Sunni jihadists. The largest refugee crisis in the world since Vietnam will destabilize Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey and potentially ignite a regional war. And America’s true red lines — Israel’s security and the steady flow of Middle Eastern oil into the global economy — will be threatened.

A gaping hole in the president’s response to Syria is that it does not grapple with the core question: what should America’s role in the Middle East be? Defender of chemical weapons bans? Defender of oil flows? Defender of Israel and no one else?

Political realities, of course, limit what type of military action Obama can propose. War weary Americans want no part of another conflict in the Middle East. But they deserve a realistic, clear-eyed strategy in the region. President George W. Bush’s invasion-centric approach to countering militancy clearly failed. But Obama’s hands-off approach is not working either.

For six years, Obama has successfully struck a middle ground in foreign policy, using drone strikes and a time-limited troop surge in Afghanistan to appear tough but anti-war. His plan to strike Syria could be the straw that breaks the back of Obama’s split-the-difference approach.

Barring a major personal lobbying effort by the president, a skeptical House is likely to reject Obama’s request for an authorization. An ABC News poll released Tuesday found that 60 percent of Americans oppose a unilateral US missile strike on Syria.

To be fair, an array of factors beyond Obama’s control have come together to turn Syria into the administration’s perfect storm. Assad’s depravity, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s cynicism and a fractious Syrian opposition make up a rogue’s gallery of stubborn opponents and unappealing allies. And the war in Iraq – which Obama opposed – has created sweeping isolationism.

Obama also has himself to blame. Traits that have been steadily building in his administration for the last several years have made Syria harder to solve.

First, it is unclear how deeply Obama, in fact, wants to act in Syria. A famously detached president seems half-engaged. Instead of Obama making impassioned speeches last week to the American people, Secretary of State John Kerry did. After making a surprise announcement on Saturday that he would seek a congressional authorization to strike Syria, Obama went golfing.

Tracking the president’s personal involvement in the debate ahead will show his true intent. If Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and others remain the primary administration voices lobbying Congress, it is a sign of Obama’s ambivalence.

In an ominous sign for the White House, opposition to the strikes is growing on the far right and left. Lead by Senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, libertarians say no vital U.S. interests are at stake in Syria. Citing Iraq, liberals who enjoy generous security and rights at home blithely dismiss the idea of enforcing international norms abroad.

As historian Douglas Brinkley noted, one of the oddest things about the American response to Assad’s chemical weapons attack is the lack of moral outrage. Beyond Kerry, few Americans have expressed anger at a barbaric attack that killed 1,400 people, including 400 children. Yes, we must not repeat the mistakes of Iraq. But that does not absolve us from seriously grappling with the nightmarish scenarios that are emerging in the Middle East.

There are no quick or easy solutions in Syria. Even if the U.S. acts, it will not stabilize the country. But we need a comprehensive strategy.

At this point, the best of several bad options is to mount extensive U.S. strikes, arm the moderate opposition and try to negotiate a political settlement with Russia and Iran. A Tomahawk-created peace is a fantasy.

This post was updated and revised at 11:45pm EST on September 3, 2013 to reflect news reports describing a draft Senate resolution authorizing the use of force in Syria.

PHOTO (Top): President Barack Obama pauses while speaking about Syria to reporters during a meeting with Baltic leaders in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington August 30, 2013. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

PHOTO (Insert): President Barack Obama (2nd R) talks to congressional leaders in the Cabinet Room at the White House in Washington while discussing a military response to Syria, September 3, 2013. From L-R are: National Security Adviser Susan Rice, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Obama, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). REUTERS/Larry Downing


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

One cannot say that Obama’s strategy has failed, and then immediately say this:

“For six years, Obama has successfully struck a middle ground in foreign policy, using drone strikes and a time-limited troop surge in Afghanistan to appear tough but anti-war.”

Either it has failed, or it has been successful. Given the current state of affairs, it appears the latter is former is the case.

Posted by Yashmak | Report as abusive

Excellent title. Excellent article.

Peoples of the Middle East -those not specifically mentioned in the following passage- want answers specifically on the following passage:

“..what should America’s role in the Middle East be? Defender of chemical weapons bans? Defender of oil flows? Defender of Israel and no one else?..”

We also want it debated. And American people are more than eager to debate it. We, and Americans, are already decided on what it IS, but we should be coming to terms on what it WILL be.

It musn’t be a surprise that many countries are edging-in towards Russia and China. Even Erdogan of Turkey said (to Putin) -Let’s forget about us joining the EU, and how about you take us in to your Far Eastern alliance.

Posted by Neslihan | Report as abusive

Did this article actually suggest anything about a debate to have? I must have missed it…

But whatever debating is done they will probably just strike anyway. For modern warfare 60 days is certainly not all that limited add an extension and that’s 3 months. That’s an incredibly wide window.

If the US death toll numbers in the chemical attack are to be believed I have no doubt the number horrifically killed in strikes will be significantly more but we would never know as the US military doesn’t count casualties – and any number Syria gives us will be instantly discounted by the US military.

It’s a shame the US can’t grow up and make a mature effort to co-exist peacefully in a modern world.

Posted by StigTW | Report as abusive

“…the best of several bad options is to mount extensive U.S. strikes … ”

Extensive US air strikes cannot be mounted without destroying Syria’s air defenses which are extensive. Syria’s Buk 2M anti-aircraft system will shoot down any aircraft which attempts that at low altitude. If you send in high altitude bombers you will likely start WWIII. So, that’s not an option, not even a bad one.

The best option is to leave well enough alone.

If the US is really concerned about humanity and children in Syria, it should help cut off all weapons to the rebels. That would end the civil war in months. Instead it is doing the reverse. Hypocrisy in governments as well as article writers is of little help in sticky situations.

Rumor has it that Prince Bandar bin Sultan, a member of the House of Saud and the Director General of Saudi Intelligence, has been funneling missiles and chemical weapons to the rebels. Ever since the Bush administration made an unholy mess of their balance of power, the Saudis have been the main financiers and underwriters of jihad against the Shi’ites.

Posted by pyanitsa | Report as abusive

This entire fiasco smells of hipocracy. I still remember the lack of indignation from our leadership in response to the atrocities going on in Rwanda. I find it difficult to believe that our current administration feels righteously indignant due to chemical weapons used on non U.S. citizens, in a foreign country but does nothing in the face of an attack on our embasy in Libya and even promotes the chief of misdirection to National Security advisor. We did nothing as people were massacred with machette’s in Rwanda. We do nothing all the time. Why Syria? Arm the rebels that we want to support, fund the same rebels but don’t waste missles to accomplish nothing. Its time for us to do nothing again.

Posted by thegruntman | Report as abusive

I know my this comment Router will not publish but my heartfelt feeling is that the root cause of campaign for democracy which instigates groups to fight for their wested interest.Why America wants to be a policeman for others !Formation of culture and the way they are happy to live in their respective country takes centuries to establish.We can not change change over night or by force.
In fact so called democracies to day are not true democracies.Say for example against the voice of people,Obama wants to attack Syria.Why?
As such there is no solution either way.Only that we must not disturb the world order,a natural order.Say for example Israel and Plestines were living peaceful for centuries but Israel unduly occupied the portion of Palestine.That they did because they are sure of American support right or wrong.So think who is the root cause?Another example is the complex of India and Pakistan vis a vis China and America.So think who is the root cause.The truth is bitter but America will have to change their mode of approach to other countries.Instead of becoming policeman,America should be a big brother to win them to serve their interest.

Posted by gentalman | Report as abusive

Rubbish. The world is full of arm-chair quarterbacks. This author echos all the others who offer both prevailing arguments- 1. Obama is leading us into a war without the consent of American people or government, and 2. Obama is weak, indecisive, ineffective, lacking vision and leadership. Which is it? Is he leading too strongly or not enough? The truth is that he is privy to information that we are not and is taking a cautious, but pointed course of action. I applaud him for seeking the authorization of Congress and ending the practice of unauthorized American wars. He is restoring an important tenet of the Constitution.

Posted by James6009 | Report as abusive

America’s role in order is:

1) Keep the military-industrial complex turning. Tomahawks cost R1.5 mil to build – that is a fair bit of jobs if you launch 500 odd missiles.
2) Keep the middle east east’s oil flowing through US corporations.
3) Continue to behave like a cold war is on against ‘terrorists’ which is another word for arabs.
4)Everything else – defend Israel, uphold the Geneva convention, destroy tyrants blah blah blah.

Posted by BidnisMan | Report as abusive

Obama seems to be taking a detached, hands-off approach to Syria, but then again isn’t that his approach for just about everything? It just seems to be his style. So just because he hasn’t said anything doesn’t mean that he isn’t leaning one way or the other in terms of what he intends to do.

Posted by delta5297 | Report as abusive

We’ve had a decade now of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East – a lot of non chemical weapons of mass destruction we sold into that region.

Why are we so focused on the Middle East versus anywhere else in the world. We all know the answers and the inability for the political will to change that.

The US Americans in DC are not in control here. Sad to say we are a pathetic laughing stock – with a mixture of sad crying from the rest of the world when we are observed of our actions in the Middle East.

PS: There is so much room for saving face in Syria. One bomb on the palace or Assad’s house – regardless of if he is there or not. Just one bomb to say we can kill you at any time. That is all that is needed. Not going to happen.

Instead we are going to weaken Assad and assist the rebels gain more power selling more arms to completely weaken Syria – all for a different agenda. Sadly 100s of thousand more will die and a huge anarchist hole will open in Syria drawing in the USA and many other countries to go in and fix it.

Posted by Butch_from_PA | Report as abusive

“…Russian President Vladimir Putin’s cynicism…”? This dictator wannabe from the KGB has delusions of grandeur to restore the USSR to it’s former status and influence. No matter that his ability to keep Russia’s financial head above water depends on enough world peace to not disrupt his getting top dollar for Russian oil and gas.

Russia’s navy is aging and rusting and likely so are it’s nuclear warheads. It’s bombers are 1960’s production and the few first-class fighters and subs it can field and maintain are just fine for a game of nuclear chicken but of little use if the “balloon ever goes up”.

He’s like the wealthy kid who inherits lots of money but does not know it is a tool or how to use it. Putin wields a UN veto the Soviet Union was given in WWII which has only served to reduce the UN to forever a side show.

You can’t keep “punching above your weight” while playing occasional “spoiler” when using your “real strength” will inevitably bankrupt you. But the America’s lack of united resolve and goals combined with the present lot of really dumb politicians do let him strut on the world stage as everyone looks on and asks themselves “ARE THEY SERIOUS?” and WHAT ARE THEY THINKING”?

Our “ship of state” has no obvious course because there is an empty suit at the wheel! No one any longer knows what America stands for, or why. We ourselves are reducing this country to irrelevance.

Posted by OneOfTheSheep | Report as abusive

Thank you for the helpful caption, “PHOTO (Insert): President Barack Obama (2nd R) talks to congressional leaders”. I would never have been able to pick out the President of the United States (who is also the only person in the photo in focus) out of the four people in that picture, without that note that he is the one second to the right. ;>

Joking aside, I have personally been horrified, outraged, and deeply saddened by the murders in Syria and I am a born and bred American. I cried when I saw the photos of (just some of) the bodies. Last December I was heartbroken, terrified, even physically ill when I learned of the deaths of a classroom of children in the same grade as my child, half an hour away from where I live, on the 20th anniversary of the school shooting at my college in which a classmate/friend of mine and a teacher/friend of mine were murdered and four others were shot. I abhor violence. I support strict gun control. I am also anti-war whenever war is avoidable, unjust, entered into based on lies and misinformation (Iraq?), without clear goals, continues with no end in sight, is fought with the idea that “collateral damage” is justifiable, tramples human rights and/or breaks the international rules of war (such as the use of WMDs).

However, I also believe in protecting the innocent and stopping those that are committing violence against others. I don’t think that we can just stand by and do nothing when (according to the latest numbers) 1,429 civilians including 426 children have been murdered and the violence will undoubtedly continue.

Syria is not the only county on this planet where innocent people are killed and live in danger from their own governments, from other countries, from opposing factions, from criminal organizations (such as drug cartels), etc. Politics are obviously playing a role in why our President is addressing Syria right now and not other places. We can’t and shouldn’t be the policing the entire rest of the world on our own without the help and support of other nations. But if no one else is going to step in and do whatever can be done to protect the civilian population of Syria and loudly say “No!” to the use of chemical weapons, then don’t we have a moral obligation to do what we can? Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur, etc., etc., – no one did anything. That is unacceptable.

What if a suburb of New York or Chicago or Atlanta or any of our cities was gassed on the scale of the proportion that Ghouta, a suburb of Damascus was? Think of the horror of school shooting, domestic terrorist attacks, 9/11? Then imagine a town being attacked and 1,429 people being killed.

It’s a small blue planet and it’s the only one we’ve got. There is only race, the human race. We are all neighbors. No civilian on this planet should have to fear nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons (or assault rifles, drone strikes, or bombs and mines, for that matter). I don’t have the solutions, but the goals seem pretty clear.

Posted by osofine | Report as abusive

@BidnisMan seems to be on the mark! @OOTS, you’re right about Russia punching above it’s weight, but we like that, see @BidnisMan #3 above. It helps the USCA keep the games going. Bringing President Obama into this just shows your deep personnel feelings toward him. The USCA middle-east policy has been fluctuating since the 70’s and will continue to do so. One puppet president will not make a difference.

Posted by tmc | Report as abusive


Bidnisman is but one of many who have been well taught to hate commerce and profit (which pay for all the luxuries Americans almost universally enjoy day in, day out). In essence, they hate themselves and all Americans, which is silly. Our military-industrial complex is massive because of all the unpredictable would-be little Hitlers that rise up like whack-a-moles with disgusting regularity in every part of the world.

Yes, weapons are expensive; but necessary. Neither weapons, cars, houses, or theater exists without perceived value or without generating profit. Without profit there is no commerce. Once more, to hate organized business and the inseparably associated actions and inaction that result in our present personal comforts and incentives is to hate our very way of life. Paint businesses white, black, or green, at the end of each day they feed and comfort us.

It is our nation’s sole source of long term survival in a hostile world and western society’s “big gun” to keep the flow of energy going that sustains our way of life. Transformed, oil keeps our lights on, our AC going, our cars and trucks on the road possible. We turn it into fertilizer, plastics, paint and an infinite number of other forms and functions absolutely essential to both our present and future.

As for Israel and the Arabs, remember that the Arabs were primarily allies of the Axis, not the Allies. Of all the peoples in the middle east, ONLY the Israelis have taken their little piece of that armpit of the planet and literally “made the desert bloom”.

Is that the result of their race, or God, or luck? No. WWII made Jews of both blood AND faith realize that THEY were responsible for their future…no one else. They educate themselves, they work with fanatic determination that their light not be extinguished and by the literal sweat of each brow they create an oasis out of sky and sand.

All one need do is compare the miracle that Israelis have created in sixty years with Arab societies that have changed but little in thousands of years. Their “windfall” oil reserves have enables some to escape from poverty only because victorious Allies did not place huge and long lasting war reparations on those resources (which would have been very easy). They repay such generosity by blackmailing our societies with high prices.

The only reason there is relative peace today is that China, the middle east and Russia are at least smart enough to realize that their economies are completely dependent on the survival of western society so long as it needs their oil. When that’s gone, they are back to selling postcards to tourists.

President Obama took a largely academic background without meaningful political, military or business experience and with superb timing and rhetoric rode the hopes and dreams of minorities to the highest office in the land. It is no surprise that he finds himself out of his depth there again and again.

The greatest ax I have to grind with him is that his presence in the driver’s seat with his hands on his lap prevents those better qualified to grasp the wheel and steer a course of positive leadership. He knows how to wish and to talk but he knows not how to lead.

The greatest legacy he could leave would be to set an example of accepting his fundamental ineptitude and resign. Jimmy Carter was the first truly incompetent president in modern history, and it took a Ronald Reagan to shove him out the door. America seems utterly without visionary leaders of late when we truly need one, and soon.

Posted by OneOfTheSheep | Report as abusive

@OOTS, well said as usual. I love your rants as they really aren’t rants at all. I don’t think @Bidnisman hates commerce and profits. Nor do I. Capitalism has always been a part of society for all of history. Very few examples of pure socialism out there. We, (speaking for him too) just don’t like the current form of global capitalism. It just developed out of the western systems over the last 40 years without much regulation, ethics, or morals. “Balance” has been lost and we desperately need to regain it. So I do still agree with him that the Roles of America in the Middle-East are just what he indicated. But I’m not saying it’s all bad either. It’s just the way it is. I hope to see the USCA move in better directions but that will take time. Should we have a strong military? Yes, indeed. But as Ike warned, you can’t let it run the government as it is now. The Military Industrial Complex is a large part of Corporate America, and that IS our government today.
As for President Obama, yep, he’s just another politician to me. He found a way to leverage the media, the internet, and the social mood to get around corporate America’s political parties. Similar to Yeltzin standing on the tank. Of course they plugged that gap with SCOTUS so it won’t happen again. So you will not have your “visionary leader” after all. Just more political hacks from the parties.
So once again I’ll plug the Liberty Amendments as the only way to “fix” this situation…
Great opinion on the Arabs and Israel. Perhaps that’s why the Jews think they will be the only ones “saved”?

Posted by tmc | Report as abusive

This is what I call the magic wand or Aladdin’s Lamp myth. It holds that there is in the Oval Office a magic wand or Aladdin’s Lamp that can be waived or rubbed to produce a favorable result. Full disclosure, I’ve never been to the White House but I’m reasonably certain there is no wand or lamp. That doesn’t stop the pundits as here where it is said Obama’s traits “for the last several years have made Syria harder to solve.” While allowing that “there are no quick or easy solutions” we are told “we need a comprehensive strategy.”
However, the pundit didn’t tell us what that “comprehensive strategy” might be. Hence, the magic wand or Aladdin’s lamp.
Speaking at the University of Washington on the occasion of its 100th anniversary in September 1961 President Kennedy said: ” The United States is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. We are but 6 per cent of the world population and cannot impose our will on the other 94 per cent. We cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity. And, therefore, there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
For the last two weeks since the drums of war have been beating(save the British Parliaments voting down Prime Minister Cameron’s war proposal) the focus has been on the United States and not on Assad’s use of chemical weapons. It’s as if the United States can use “military force is a get out of jail for Assad.
Would it not be better to force a U.N. Security Council vote and make the Russian’s and Communist China to cast there veto’s publically? Could we not then go to the U.N. General Assembly? Could we not submit our evidence to the U.N. Criminal Court to support an indictment of Assad as a war criminal? Could not the European Union and the Arab League be mobilized to condemn Assad use of chemical weapons? There are 190 countries in the world not the U.S. or Syria. Why can they not be mobilized? Shouldn’t Muslim nations take this on as it is Muslims being killed by Muslims. Could we not announce we will provide Logistics, Communications, Intelligence, etc. for Muslim nations to take this on? Would this not produce a more positive result than bombing another Muslim nation? Remember we still have Iran lurking in the background where “all options are on the table” including starting another war in the Middle East.

Posted by Dryly | Report as abusive

America will fail in the Middle East, as it has for the past 13 years. Our role as a superpower is thankfully coming to an end!

Posted by KyleDexter | Report as abusive


And what would you like with your lump of coal for the following Christmas? Better hope your village wants you back!

Posted by OneOfTheSheep | Report as abusive

Wars are best launched in secret with suddenness and overwhelming power. To tell the enemy what you plan to do is treason. Unless you are week and have to campaign for military allies.

Posted by Samrch | Report as abusive

Israel has never had a problem bombing Syria. Why are we being dragged into their bombing this time. Not that long ago Israel bombed the heck out of Syria. Israel is more than capable of doing this again. This is Israel’s back yard, let them do their own dirty work. The toxic bombs that we drop are much more destructive and have longer lasting effects than assess gasses. No More US War Beast Machine. Let US build a PEACE Machine out of hemp.

Posted by 2Borknot2B | Report as abusive

“What should America’s role in the Middle East be?”

Our role in world conflicts continues to be: “What will benefit the Plutocracy behind the American arms manufacturers?” The United States has been wildly successful in this endeavor. The rich get richer. It even helps that millions more people every year learn to hate the United States. Hatred is good as it fans greed – $ $ $ $ $ …

Posted by ptiffany | Report as abusive

Most of the People are Blindly opposing the American Intervention on Syria . But they forgot the fact that already more than 100,000 people have been died and 200,000 people left the country since the problem has started.
Either UN or Arab League failed to find a solution for this
problem for the last 2 years . Let Arab League or Countries Opposing the American Action Failed to come up with a solution Else Nato has to solve his Mess .

Posted by RStephen | Report as abusive

Violence begets violence. Military planners in the first 2 world wars planned violence on a scale that observers thought would never be repeated. Naive citizenry always trust their peers like academics their landowning elites. The end result of this cycle of violence is the massacre of brave soldiers in the theatre of war that never brings a single CHANGE for the better in international relationships.
When soldiers are willing to see the matrix of intrigue, double entendre & propaganda into which they are thrown like lambs led to the slaughter, a time will come when the violent solution organised by planners behind closed doors will be seen for what it is.
A cabal. WTFU soldiers!

Posted by golding | Report as abusive


We “get it”. You hate “the plutocracy” (anyone successful). You hate the rich. You hate the United States as it is. Share with us what “life event” turned such a little sweetheart into such a hate hate hater? What’s the point?

Posted by OneOfTheSheep | Report as abusive

“What should America’s role in the Middle East be?” Wrong question here entirely! We should not pick winners or fight in the Syrian civil war because they are no good outcomes possible. The U.S. cannot solve the Middle East problem. Every President since at least Eisenhower (Truman was before my time) has tried and failed.
On the other hand, we can help enforce international law, and we can deliver a message to Putin and his schemes of Russian empire. That is our mission, not solving the Middle Eastern problem.

Posted by QuietThinker | Report as abusive

From this article: “one of the oddest things about the American response to Assad’s chemical weapons attack is the lack of moral outrage.” Let’s see if I can explain this such that, really, anyone can understand. It is not an issue of moral outrage. It is an issue of the role of the United States in the world and how we go about that role. What is the point of participating in the United Nations if we are not to behave as a citizen member? When will the United Nations ever become effective and accountable if the United States continues it’s cowboy policing role on the world stage? The American people are sick of it. Genocide is occurring in the world at all times. Are we upset as a people? YES OF COURSE!!! Do we throw our citizens, sons, daughters, fathers, brothers, sisters, mothers into war everytime, and usually with no international support concurrence? RIDICULOUS. How can some brainy people be so smart and keep missing this?

Posted by SanJoseCA | Report as abusive

“As historian Douglas Brinkley noted, one of the oddest things about the American response to Assad’s chemical weapons attack is the lack of moral outrage.”

Blatantly false. Many of us have been speaking up for almost two years. Watching YouTube videos of children crawling out of heaps of rubble that until a few minutes previous were the only home they’d ever known. At least with CW, there is a body to bury, not just “parts”. The horror didn’t start on August 21, 2013.

If EVEN ONE cell phone picture had surfaced by now of disintegrated rocket parts, or Occam’s razor would let us believe Assad would act so desperately when he was winning, there might be a debate. There’s not.

Missile strikes will not be an end, or an improvement. They will merely light the fuse.

Posted by k2d2 | Report as abusive

@OneoftheSheep, awwwww little boy is offended by the truth.

America foreign policy is a huge failure and embaressement. We are hated in most parts of the world because of it. And I saw how successful our Iraq and Afganistan wars were for our interests. We have made Al-Qaeda bigger than it has ever been!

Posted by KyleDexter | Report as abusive