To be sure, the use of chemical weapons on Syrian civilians is outrageous and appalling.
Using Harry Truman's famous saying that the buck stops with the president, the Obama administration reasons that Assad crossed the red line and used chemical weapons on his own people, despite being warned by Obama not to.
But Assad himself publicly contests the claim that evidence shows that his armed forces used chemical weapons. Even if Assad is responsible for the use of chemical weapons against his own people, I would not expect Assad to come out and admit it. On the contrary, I would expect him to say instead exactly what he is saying.
However, apart from Assad's own self-serving statements, I have not seen evidence yet that would conclusively rule out the possibility that the rebel forces used the chemical weapons on Syrian people as a way to frame Assad.
But now Obama wants a limited strike against
But if Assad is the alleged culprit who is supposedly going to be punished, should he be targeted?
No, no, no, the
OK, but will Assad's armed forces be targeted instead? After all, it would seem to be a proportionate punishment to kill 1,500 of Assad's armed forces.
But Assad might understandably interpret the killing of 1,500 of his armed forces as military aggression by a foreign power (the
So it might not be a good idea for the
So President Obama proposes only a limited attack on
But the limited attack on
But what about the people who might get killed when the
Now, President Obama and John Kerry claim that American credibility abroad will be damaged if the
But what do they mean by "American credibility"?