We're already far down the path to a defeat for American interests and principles in Syria, having failed to respond promptly and strongly. Still, a strong if late response would be better than none. A half-hearted late response—such as arming some of the rebels—might not be. It could well be too little, too late. So the American response to the game-changer has to be itself game-changing, i.e., serious. It’s hard to see what a serious response would be short of direct American engagement—perhaps a combination of enforcement of a no-fly zone and aerial attacks. And no serious president would rule out a few boots on the ground (it’s pretty hard to secure chemical weapons by air).
Read Full Article »
