If there's such a thing as a “good option” in dealing with the Syrian government's alleged chemical weapons attack on its civilian population, it's hiding pretty well. There are too many devils that we do know and plenty more that we don't.
And while few are yet privy to how the United States might respond, there's great concern that President Obama, in an attempt to save red-line red face, might merely fire that proverbial $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent to hit a camel in the butt.
That concern is buttressed by the words of a senior administration official who told CNN that the goal of any U.S. response would not be to “punish or embarrass” Syrian strongman Bashar Assad but to send “a message of accountability.”
Well, if that's the case, why doesn't Mr. Obama write him a ticket for a summary offense that lists the date on which he should appear in court?
In some quarters, the only acceptable U.S. response would be to take out the entire Assad family with the hopes that it would end the Syrian civil war. But at the risk of a new Lucifer worse than the old. In other quarters, there remain serious and valid questions as to Mr. Assad's culpability in such attacks; is it not more likely rebels of one stripe or another are the real culprits, attempting to lure Americans to fight their fight?
Indeed, as The Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens put it on Tuesday, “The world can ill afford a reprise of the 1930s, when the barbarians were given free rein by a West that had lost its will to enforce global order.”
It would be wise, however, to be doubly certain of who the barbarians are.
