Clearly, there are no good options for handing the Syria "situation." And "bad" doesn't describe the ones that are left: "horrendous," maybe, or "disastrous." "Impossible." But it occurs to me that that very truth is what's behind Assad's decision to, more unambiguously than last time, gas his people. It's deliberately aimed at us. At President Obama. It's really no-lose thing for Assad; or, more properly, maybe, for those whose aim is to destroy the U.S.
After all, look how a low-cost operation like 9/11 nearly destroyed us: got Bush to overreact, spend trillions of dollars, kill countless people, ruin the economy... Were we drawn into another war in another tribal country where there'd be no winners, only losers, it could be devastating. On the other hand, were we to do nothing, it'd make us look powerless. Any way you look at it, such a provocation seems purposeful. And now, he ups the ante, like B'rer Rabbit.
I think at the core of Obama's "failure" to intervene more directly is his cognizance that it's only lose-lose for us: economically, geopolitically. Even morally, when there's no identifiable "good" side, other than the innocent bystanders, children, a million of whom have fled already.
Anyone looking at the situation feels terrible. Other, maybe, than Congressional Rs and their pundits, who see an opportunity to paint Obama as feckless. Humans with hearts want the killing to stop. But, other than lobbing a cruise missile into Assad's headquarters, what, really, is there to do?
I have no idea, and I'm glad I'm not president. I'm also glad neither McCain nor Romney is; we'd be up to our necks in it long since. I tend to think that, at its most practical level, doing nothing is about the only real option. History has to play out, when it's civil war in tribal nations. Haven't we learned that? But it's hard, it looks bad, and it is bad.
[Image source]
