The Wall Street Journal has some very bad ideas about what to do in Syria.
Bret Stephens lists a variety of aggressive steps that Obama should take in Syria and then offers one unintentionally hilarious one:
(5) Be prepared to seize and remove Syria's chemical weapons stockpile, even if it means putting boots (temporarily) on the ground.
Mr. Obama has categorically ruled out sending troops to Syria, and he plainly regrets drawing a red line that he didn't mean to honor when it came to the use of chemical weapons. But even scarier than the threat of Assad killing more Syrians with those weapons is the possibility they would fall into terrorist hands—Sunni or Shiite—as Syria dissolves further into anarchy. That may have happened already. It will certainly happen if nothing is actively done to stop it.
Here's what the Pentagon had to say about a possible "boots on the ground" mission to neutralize Syria's chemical weapons arsenal:
The Pentagon has told the Obama administration that any military effort to seize Syria’s stockpiles of chemical weapons would require upward of 75,000 troops, amid increasing concern that the militant group Hezbollah has set up small training camps close to some of the chemical weapons depots, according to senior American officials.
There's nothing "temporary" about invading another country.
Syria is on fire and the brightest minds of the neoconservative movement think it's the height of strategy to put Americans in the middle of the inferno -- and then dump gasoline on it.