OK, now I am no diplomat, foriegn policy whiz, or military strategist-- Although, I do play a lot of Risk on the computer. But as I look at the president's muddled response to Syria, it is so easy for me to arm chair quarterback. What I have come up with just seems like basic textbook stuff. So, here goes. This is how we should have responded to Assad's alleged chemical weapons attack on his own people. I say alleged because we are not entirely sure what went on and who is doing what. I am not providing cover for him. So, again, here is how we should have responded to the incident.
a. Ask him if he unleashed a deadly chemical attack on his people. He would say "no".
b. Give hm the benefit of the doubt and say "fair enough! Then you should have no objections to us sending in aid to help the victims of the attack." Our next step would depend on what he said.
1. If he refused our help, then we would know that he actually was responsible for the attack. Then we would dump everything we had on his dogpatch of a country.
2. If he agreed, we would carry out our plan of aid to the people, but still believe he was responsible for the attack.
c. Then we would go to him and offer to help him defeat Al Quaida. I'm pretty sure he would be open to that. If not, then we would bomb the crap out of him.
d. Once we achieved that objective, we would sit down and talk to him again and demand that he have open elections. If not, then we would remove him from office.
Not perfect I understand. But this is the template that we would use and deal with all the variables as they come, which they will-- kind of like you do in Risk. I am editing and modifying this diary as I go.
* My first choice would have been to stay out of it.