I wasn't ready to assume initial reports were right about chemical weapons use, and thought maybe if casualty reports dropped a lot, it might be something other than chemical warfare. But it seems like Assad ordered chemical weapons use:
U.S. and allied intelligence agencies' have made a preliminary assessment that chemical weapons were used by Syrian forces in an attack near Damascus this week, likely with high-level approval from the government of President Bashar al-Assad, according to American and European security sources.
And this makes the situation different:
President Obama’s assertion that “core national interests” are now on the line following what looks increasingly to have been large-scale use of chemical weapons this week against rebel strongholds outside Damascus suggests the US is moving closer to some form of intervention in Syria.
Why this thousand dead is more dead than the previous 100,000 dead is beyond me. But there you go.
So what do we do?
We obviously aren't going to invade. Not to overthrow the regime and not to seize control of all the chemical weapons storage, launch, and production facilities.
Air and missile attacks on chemical weapons depots would simply give Assad the excuse to use the weapons before he loses them. And unless the attack is a lengthy campaign to destroy the entire arsenal and production facilities (and do we know where it all is?), we won't stop chemical weapons "use it or lose it" conditions any time soon.
I say the best response is what we should have been doing for the last 2 years or so: open up the spigot for arms to the non-jihadi rebels and provide the rebels with all the intelligence we can. The best way to counter Assad's use of chemical weapons to save his regime is to make sure his regime is going to lose.
It would be nice if Iranian transport planes started blowing up on the ground, too, in order to cut Iran's lifeline to Syria.
If the administration really thinks it has to do something more, I suggest a cruise missile strike on both the unit that launched the chemical attack and a strike on Baath Party headquarters to see if we can kill some senior people behind the orders. Or any senior leaders, really. Who cares if we finger those who issued the orders. Let them all worry. If we get Assad, bonus!
Make it known that any use of chemical weapons will result in an attack on the unit using the chemicals and on some headquarters element of our choice to punish leadership of the military or government.
And stop worrying about not knowing who will take power if Assad loses. This should not paralyze us into inaction. We know who controls the state if Assad doesn't lose--poison gas-using Assad, that's who.
Get rid of Assad and worry about the second step when step one is done.
UPDATE: More of this would be nice:
Four hundred tonnes of arms have been sent into Syria from Turkey to boost insurgent capabilities against Syrian government forces, opposition sources said, after a suspected chemical weapons strike on rebellious suburbs of Damascus.
It arrived in the last day and is one of the biggest shipments to reach rebels.
We shouldn't be talking about a one-time retaliation for a chemical weapons incident. We should be working 24/7 to overthrow Assad as hard as Iran and Russia are working to preserve him.
UPDATE: Remember that focusing on the strategy of wanting to overthrow our enemy Assad eliminates the need to make sure Assad's forces used chemical weapons. It would be embarrassing to retaliate only to find Assad didn't use chemicals. But that shouldn't matter. Assad is responsible for over 100,000 dead just for being a thug dictator. And he has the blood of a lot of American troops on his hands.
If we work to support acceptable rebels so they can defeat Assad we will end Assad's ability to use chemical weapons and we will have the chance to end a war that has strengthened al Qaeda and perhaps gave them the opportunity to use chemical weapons. But Instead we're playing CSI: Damascus.
