Proportionality is Pointless

As the debate over our potential response to Assad's use of chemical weapons proceeds, can we finally kill the strategically stupid notion of "proportional response?"

If preventing the use of chemical weapons is an important national security objective and Assad crossed a "red line" our president set for using them, the idea that we should respond "proportionally" is strategically bankrupt. I heard it brought up for the first time regarding Syria today.

By making only a proportional response, we allow Assad to decide how much punishment he can take. This will not stop Assad from using chemical weapons--it will just allow him to use chemical weapons in doses designed to provoke no more of an American response than Assad can endure.

If we use force in response to Assad's chemical weapons use and our purpose is to stop Assad from using chemical weapons (rather than attacking to make President Obama look better without regard to any other objective related to Syria), we should hit Assad's regime very hard.

Destroy whatever artillery unit that fired the chemical weapons (and if we're not sure, select several within range of the chemical strike site) and hit some very high level government, military, or Ba'ath Party headquarters to make leaders feel the pain.

And let the Syrians know that this is what we do when they cross our red line.

Oh, and do what we should have been doing all along: support the rebels so they can win rather than trying to "level the playing field" for negotiations that can only serve the purpose of saving Assad to fight (and slaughter) another day.

Let's not speak of proportional military action. Let's speak of effective military action.

UPDATE: Thanks to Mad Minerva for the link.