I Just Don't Care

One argument against attacking Assad's forces in retaliation for Assad's chemical weapons use is that it would be really awful if it turns out that Assad didn't order the use of chemical weapons. Why is that so?

If the latest alleged chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds of civilians wasn't Assad's responsibility, we shouldn't stop Assad?

So 100,000+ (and climbing) casualties by less objectionable means doesn't justify using force?

Decades of Assad regime support for terrorists doesn't justify using force?

Funneling jihadis into Iraq prior to the Iraq War to create a jihadi foreign legion for the defense of the Saddam regime (Saddam's Fedayeen) doesn't justify using force?

Hosting jihadis and Saddam's boys so they could funnel terrorists into free Iraq to kill our troops, Coalition forces, and Iraqis doesn't justify using force?

Being an awful dictatorship doesn't justify using force?

That awful, terror-supporting dictatorship having chemical weapons doesn't justify using force?

Being Iran's loyal little attack dog who enable Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism doesn't justify using force?

Isn't the duration of the war that is turning parts of Syria into jihadi fiefdoms and enabling al Qaeda in Iraq to regenerate and threaten our hard-won victory in Iraq justify use of force against Assad if it can hasten his end and open the possibility that Syrians can unite against jihadis in their midst?

Come on! Assad has earned being thought of as our "enemy" and not some pragmatic guy we can do business with.

So while I want us to support rebels in Syria to destroy our enemy Assad--and don't think we need to directly retaliate specifically for chemical weapons use (regime change is the best retaliation in my opinion)--I can be on board for effective military force that puts pillars of support for Assad at risk. So hit air force, missile, and artillery units capable of firing chemical weapons. Hit headquarters assets of Baath Party or loyal military units.

But even if I might cringe if President Obama uses ineffective military force as a symbolic wholly pointless shot across the bow that Assad decides is an acceptable price to pay for continuing to use chemical weapons, I won't complain about the strike if we find out that Assad's government didn't order a chemical strike (say it wasn't really a chemical strike, a subordinate did it on their own initiative against top orders, an accidental hit of a chemical arsenal, or even rebel use on their own people to make it seem like Assad did it).

There are plenty of reasons to hurt Assad's regime. And just because the chemical weapons reason might be false doesn't mean all the other reasons don't justify using force against Assad.

Come on! We've failed to treat our friends as friends the last five years. The British even decided to stand aside from Syria. Perhaps some of the British are thinking President Obama can ask the Argentinians for support.

Maybe if we started to treat enemies as enemies--and we could do worse than start with Assad in Syria--we'd get back on the path to being taken seriously in foreign circles.

For the record, here is the administration's case against Assad. It includes the claim that Assad has used chemical weapons "multiple" times on a small scale prior to the latest big attack that killed close to 1,500 people; and the assertion that Assad considers chemical weapons just another weapon in their arsenal apparently no more awful to use on civilians than any other weapon.