Perhaps out of logic, straightforwardness and/or a desire to meet the other halfway, President Obama appears to have a tendency to make commitments that later come back to bite him.
Perhaps Obama should be more careful about what he calls a "red line." Dictators are not impressed by empty threats. Would there be support for a multi-national effort to secure chemical weapons stores?
US President Barack Obama's "Will Not" has come across as half-baked compared to the Hezbollah secretary general's retort with an arrogant "Will Not" ...
The notion that somehow arming Syria's opposition means a long and protracted war is misguided and driven by a realist-inspired desire to stay on the sidelines and never intervene anywhere.
Those seeing the human tragedy unfolding in Syria with a heart full of hell, ready to jump in, stop the bloodshed, and deliver Bashar al Assad a knock-out punch might do well to recall a telling anecdote from journalist Dexter Filkins from his days in Iraq.
International aid money and donor priorities need specifically to allocate resources to target sexual violence, instead of camouflaging it under other programs or outright ignoring it.
Arab esteem and gratitude toward the United States would decisively shift for the better if it helps to save the people of Syria. Here is a case where American interests and values are in lock step with the Arab world's most urgent aspirations.
Washington's foreign policy should be one of peace. Today the U.S. is without peer. Terrorism is the most serious security threat facing the country, but it is only exacerbated by promiscuous intervention in conflicts not America's own.
Syria is now a failed state. The fact that Assad used Sarin against a small number of people may indicate panic by local officials, or more likely a considered policy of the gradual introduction of this new escalation. That is why all eyes are again on Washington. This is show-time; the world is watching and many habitual trouble-makers, including perhaps even the mischievous and treacherous gangster thugdom of Putin's Russia, are more amenable than they have been to support an effective intervention by the United States in Syria. If not now, when?
Absent constructive engagement by the U.S., I am very concerned that the killing in Syria will continue and extremists will play an increasingly influential role in determining that country's future, resulting in very negative implications for the region.
But politicians seem more concerned about U.S. credibility than suffering Syrians. So what's next for Washington? If I were president, I'd try to carefully navigate between two horrendous mistakes my predecessors made.
Things are going poorly for Sheikh Nasrallah and his masters. His army bleeds heavily, particularly in the Homs area, where it is engaged in heavy fighting with the Syrian Sunni rebels.
I am resigned to having the U.S. remain color blind to red lines, largely because the options for credible retaliation are so wretchedly unpalatable. We will be hearing in the coming days about lots of options... until they are exposed to the cold, cruel light of day.
Would Captain Kirk try to stop the raging civil war in Syria? Or would the Prime Directive prevent him from attempting to end the bloodshed?