The Thick Red Line

Will we ever know who sprayed chemical weapons on innocent Syrian citizens caught between two sets of mass murderers?  Unlikely, but that will not stop every Western nation from exploring their military options.  The U.S. already has Naval assets in the area, and they are just itching to launch their way into another intractable war.  Here is a user's guide to the war so far.

What is the proper response?  If we ask questions first and shoot later--we risk taking too long to mount a retaliation that proves we are still capable of deterring chemical aggression (clearly we weren't as of several days ago).  If we shoot first, and ask questions later, we ignite another Iraq or Afghan conflict.  If we act to destroy all the chemical weapons, we risk killing more civilians with the gasses we are attempting to destroy, and the use of which we seek to punish.  If we kill Assad, we risk the installation of a far-worse option (if one exists).  If we kill a few Syrian soldiers, have we really responded in a meaningful way? 

If we've learned anything, it's that there is no such thing as a proportionate response.  We've also learned that in the new world of warfare, the enemy is far too elusive for conventional responses.  If a response is developed, let it be one that most of the world can agree on.  Let it be one that truly deters because it has the backing of the friends of Syria.  Let it be one that signifies an end to the tolerance of the death of tens of thousands already wrought by conventional weapons.  Only a response that encompasses these principles is truly proportionate.   

Could Assad Actually Be Right?

Since the start of the uprising (which started peacefully until Assad brought in the big guns, probably at the prompting of his mommy), Assad has claimed that Syria was under seige by terrorists.  Each government agency has its own definition of "terrorism", but those peacefully marching in protest against Assad were not terrorists by any definition.  Now, those fighting Assad are terrorists by every definition.  al-Qaeda has moved into Syria with force, and they have been able to overcome their differences to fight one common enemy (Assad) while the prepare to fight another: the secular Syrians who just want peace and quiet in their country.

Terrorism guru Bruce Hoffman confirmed what should be our worst fears.  Things are going from bad to worse (if that's possible) and no one has a good idea how to stop the slide.  Will the U.S. start backing Assad against al-Qaeda?  Will we act to stop the terrorists or Assad? Or will we continue to sit idly by and hope for the best?  Neither of these is a good option, but neither is Assad or al-Qaeda.

Egypt's Collapse Into Recent History

Egypt cannot get it right.  First they spend 30 years under a dictator.  Then they elect a an extreme religious figure to run a secular country.  Then the army overthrows the elected dictator in a coup (let's call a spade a spade here).  Egypt must have taken a page from the U.S. playbook: overthrow a somewhat popular leader/despot with no end-game in sight.  Now hundreds more are dead, and the toll will certainly climb.  

If Egypt is not careful, it's going to start to look like it's neighbor Syria, complete with al-Qaeda fighters and an uncertain outcome that could see a power vacuum filled by terrorists.  This L.A. Times article details the setting of the stage. 

Hopefully Egypt can save itself from itself.