“It was the president’s determination to hold Assad accountable – and the fact that he put military action on the table – that enabled this new diplomatic track to gain momentum,” Mr. Hagel told lawmakers.
If the prospect of an American attack that Kerry described as "unbelievably small" could compel Assad to give up his chemical weapons, why is the Obama administration so eager to say this isn't going to be Iraq or Afghanistan (sorry Afghanistan, you only used to be the "good" war)?
If Assad is that much of a pushover, is there really a danger of escalation? Wouldn't the threat of a Marine Expeditionary Force landing on Syria's coast cause Assad to soil himself and run off to Russia for exile?
Further, if Assad is really so convinced about our resolve to strike, why would he give up the only real deterrent he has to prevent our attack? Aren't chemical weapons the only real way to deter us? Haven't leftists spent a dozen years saying it is no surprise that rogue regimes want WMD given that Iraq (and now Libya) suffered regime change without WMD?
I feel sick.
