It looks as if after gross violations of human rights treaties, the wanton slaughter of children, the destruction of the infrastructure of the nation and crossing several of President Obama's red lines by the use of chemical weapons, Syria has finally goaded the world, or at least the humane part of it, into action to put an end to the Bashar al-Assad regime's genocidal attempt to stay in power.
Any action taken by a multilateral (hopefully) force will have to be well thought out as to how much, how far and how long this action would proceed.
How much of Syria's offensive and defensive weaponry would be destroyed? How far would the mandate go? Would it totally remove Assad from power, and if so, who would replace him? How long would the commitment last? Would the coalition be bound to maintaining a never-ending no-fly zone, and would it require troops on the ground to protect whatever status quo is achieved?
These are lessons we should have learned well in Iraq, but have we?
And the question remains, could the Syrian rebels have used the chemical weapons hoping to point the finger at Assad to insure his ousting?
These and other questions need to be answered before any kind of action, bilateral or unilateral is taken. Otherwise, we will be right back in the same old Middle Eastern boiling pot again, and I think everybody – doves and hawks alike – have had enough of that.
One of the most important questions is, what will the ramifications be? And there will be some. You can count on it.
Assad is threatening to attack Israel if the Western powers take any action, but I seriously doubt he could even get an all-out effort off the ground before Israel would obliterate Syria's military – something they are well capable of doing, and if he does attack, even Israel's most staunch critics could not fault them for defending themselves.
Nevertheless, if Assad is crazy enough to go to war with Israel, it will get messy in a hurry, and things could escalate rapidly in that volatile area. Other hostiles in the region could use it as an excuse to get involved, and that's where America, and whatever coalition they can cobble together, has to stand strong in defending Israel.
And if Obama is not willing to do that, he should just stay out of the situation, because I'm sure there are factions in the neighborhood who would like nothing better than an all-out war with Israel and will use any American involvement as an excuse to use every means at their disposal to drag every Islamic nation in the Middle East into the fight.
Israel's enemies should be told on no uncertain terms that any offensive movements against Israel would be an act of war against their ally, the United States.
The day for half-baked responses and mealy mouthed resolutions are over. It's time to mean what we say or not say it at all and to stop drawing movable red lines and replying to deadly force with diplomatic doublespeak that means absolutely nothing.
Then there's Russia, the joker in the deck. I don't believe Putin has any respect - and certainly no fear - of Obama, and it's time to turn that tide. Time to go toe-to-toe with his complete involvement, answer every statement in kind and let him know that America is still a super power that will stand by her allies regardless of what Russia thinks about it.
Approaching the situation in Syria with anything less than total resolve would be the biggest mistake Obama could make. The only thing Middle Eastern governments understand is strength and power, as it has been proven in Libya and Syria in the past couple of years.
Diplomacy not bolstered by strength is wasted effort; the only thing they respect is strength and the will to use it.
We have the strength.
What do you think?
Pray for our troops and the peace of Jerusalem
God Bless America