Syria - Should We Or Shouldn't We?

There was a period of time that I thought the West needed to intervene in Syria in some manner to stop the slaughter of civilians.  It didn't happen.  There was a lot of huffing and puffing and false predictions and empty threats.

Now, some 100,000 deaths later, it would seem we're going to do something.  There is still the dithering as to exactly what, when and the question, the big question, as to what the end result will be.

That concerns me.  We are now agreeing that chemical weapons have been used. Though that's not a positive.  It remains unclear who used them or maybe both sides did.  Let's presume for the moment it was the regime.

Do we have a clue as to how many there might be and where?  While we dither the Syrians have plenty of time to relocate their assets and prepare for an attack.  What exactly are we going to attack since the President has said this isn't about regime change though I can't figure out why.

Oh sure, the rebels might be worse than the regime.  In the long run perhaps, but in the short term it's hard to imagine.  And do we really think that by lobbing missiles at targets we hope are accurate that we won't add to the civilian carnage?  That won't endear us to anyone.

We have to remember too, that Syria is not a signatory of any agreement to not use chemical weapons so does it not beg to question the legality of our launching an attack to punish a sovereign country who has done nothing to us?  Is that not an act of war?  Oh sure, words will be parsed to justify it.

Then too what might their allies Russia and Iran do?  Is Russia capable of hitting our war ships?  Israel is of course in the cross hairs and what better time to hit them than during the upcoming chaos?  It also leaves the turmoil in Egypt on the back burner for the time being and when the cat's away all sorts of mischief can be done by the mice!

My feeling is there is too much confusion surrounding the what's and wherefores to do anything militarily at this point.  There is no end game.  There is no one to take the regimes place that we have enough confidence in to support.  Plus our record in that area has been dismal.

It will do nothing to stabilize the region and will have the rest of the watching world scratching their heads and wondering what we could possibly be thinking this time and what we expect to gain.

The time for intervention of this type seems to me to be long past.  Level the battle field for the rebels we think we can trust, who have been promised but are still waiting, and let them fight it out.  A lethal attack for the sake of "doing something" is no reason to add to the conflict and will solve nothing.

The action, it has been said, is partially to save the President's legacy.  Why would he want to make it any worse than it's already going to be?