What seems to be lacking the most is an explicit political objective achievable in a time period and at a cost that is domestically palatable. Injecting countless weapons into this imbroglio will not alter the underlying political dynamics and may serve to prolong it.
There has been mounting criticism of the Obama administration for setting a line in the sand on Syria -- the movement or use of chemical weapons -- and then apparently failing to act out on its promise. The criticism has come in two varieties.
The big problem -- not just for Obama, but for America -- is that there simply aren't a whole lot of good options in Syria. So I thought it'd be worthwhile to go through them, in the spirit of Bush's "decider room."
Amnesty International has produced compelling evidence of massacres, mass abduction, detention beatings, killings and torture by anti-Libyan militia -- backed by the British, French and U.S. So will a post-Assad Syria be any different?