Assad was gaining the upper hand in Syria. The US wants an excuse to prevent that, and keep Syria in a state of savagery and civil war as long as possible.

It makes my head spin that by striking Syria, we could be setting off a chain of events that we have no control over. What is the end game of this strike?

At worst, it's just an excuse to keep the war machine going for another several decades.

This isn't going to end with keeping Assad from using chemical weapons. It won't even stop with Assad's death. Syria has become such a proxy war between Russia/US and the Arab gulf states and Iran that weapons and fighters will continue to flood into Syria for years as one side tried to get the upper hand over their rivals.

This is the worst parts of 1980s Afghanistan and the worst parts of post-invasion Iraq combined. The leadership in this country is so fucking shortsighted it borders on criminal.

so the war continues. Interesting theory......

Seriously, that's the ugly truth people are stepping around here.

So long as this insurgency continues, the bloodshed and death and chaos will continue with it, whether or not King Chinless is in charge or dead in a ditch.

The ONLY WAY to draw it to a close is to give Assad at least diplomatic backing to end the insurrection against his government. It won't be bloodless, of course, but it will be less bloody than letting this stretch out another six fucking years, and is the best shot at there still being a "Syria" at the end.

No, it won't "punish" Assad, unless he accepts some sort of deal demanding his resignation or something in exchange for this aid. But then he won't be the first head of state to escape punishment for his crimes and actions, will he? Maybe he can take up painting while sitting in a bathtub in Tehran or something.

However, too many groups are too-far invested in that civil war for it to permanently end with the current government in power, with or without Assad. Saudi Arabia and Israel want it gone because its too friendly with Iran. Iran wants it in because Syria is a major ally. Hezbollah wants it in because it funnels arms and aid from Iran. AQ and ISIS want it out because its a secular state. Russia wants it in because its an ally. The US wants it out because its a Russian and Iranian ally. Egypt wants it out because its a threat to Israel. Jordan wants it out because it can't handle the enormous amount of refugees. Turkey's torn because it wants to be considered the responsible adult of the Middle East. Iraq wants it over because the Tigris and Euphrates flow through Syria.

And lastly, the government wants to hold onto power, and the embers of the Arab Spring will burn brightly for years, even if the civil war technically ends with a government victory.

Too many people and too many groups are invested in it for it to simply end.

And the best way to end the insurgency is to back Assad against it.

After that, then we can figure out what next.

But... we're not going to do that, we're going to prolong the civil war, get a lot more Syrians killed, and accomplish nothing of any good for anyone.

There are no good guys in this. Hundreds of thousands of people are going to die, that's sadly inevitable, but its the result of a finally-exploded powder keg built by the Cold War and tensions between Middle Eastern groups and nations for decades, especially the mini-Cold War among the Gulf states, not by any direct US action. Yes, we're certainly to blame for our actions in the ME in general, but the Syrian civil war is not our responsibility, period.

I wonder if we even think of that when we "need to do something"?

the command and control of the Syrian army and other military targets.... how do they expect a fragmented Syrian army to defend the chemical weapon stockpiles reasonably?

If al Qaeda gets their hands on them, they could make their way back to the US. And we would have Obama to thank, if these attacks are launched.

and I am not liking this at all.

Kill them all and let God sort it out ? Just so I have this straight, this little shock and awe is not aimed at ousting Mr. Assad ? Allrighty then, cause I'm just sure this won't open up the sites to raids by militants. No sir indeed.

squat except "punishment" whatever that is to a country gripped in civil war.

a variety of conventional military targets is ruling out regime change? Okay.

unless we get "lucky". And by "lucky" I mean who replaces Assad?

instead of rushing to war.

And that's a damn shame.

but someone has to guard the sites..hopefully...

Attacking chemical weapons storage sites comes with the same difficulties and risks associated with attacking munitions depots generally, and with its own special dangers, which the American military encountered in two wars in Iraq. First among them are risks of contamination to the very Syrian civilians that any military action would officially be intended to protect.

Many veterans suspect that some of the effects of Gulf War syndrome that afflicted veterans of the Persian Gulf war of 1991 were caused by exposure to chemical weapons released in clouds by conventional airstrikes against Iraq’s chemical weapons sites in southern Iraq.

After the first gulf war, an American Army unit near Kuwait breached chemical weapons while destroying conventional munitions at Khamisiyah, creating an environmental hazard that persisted throughout the American occupation of Iraq after the invasion in 2003.

Similarly, airstrikes in 1991 on bunkers at the Muthanna chemical weapons complex near Samarra, Iraq, led to security and environmental problems that continue to the present day.

DESTROY OR SECURE SYRIA'S CHEMICAL WEAPONS

Although most of the estimated 100,000 dead in the civil war have been killed with conventional arms, the international community has been outraged by Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons.

Western experts believe the regime holds hundreds of tonnes of sarin, VX and mustard gas, and some have called on American forces to lead an operation to destroy or secure the stockpile and prevent it being used on civilians or falling into terrorist hands.

Again, Dempsey was unenthusiastic.

"At a minimum, this option would call for a no-fly zone as well as air and missile strikes involving hundreds of aircraft, ships, submarines, and other enablers," he said.

"Thousands of special operations forces and other ground forces would be needed to assault and secure critical sites," he warned, adding that even this would offer no guarantees.

"The impact would be the control of some, but not all chemical weapons," he said, adding: "Our inability to fully control Syria's storage and delivery systems could allow extremists to gain better access.

not targeting chemical stockpiles is a wise choice.

Targeting the means for the Syrian army to use those chemicals is a smart idea.