Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
Bill:

I said I liked the plan but it did have some weaknesses, glaring ones. Those weaknesses I mentioned are some of the same ones you cited.

As far as the opposition goes , well...they're the opposition and will oppose it.

The plan is not solely military. There are a number of non-military aspects to it and none of the individual aspects of the plan or the plan as a whole may work. It's a plan, not a guarantee. But it seems like a good starting point if it is decided that we should try to do more than stand and watch.
Carl,

First I'm not opposed to acting if our leadership believes it is in our national interests to do so. Those interests may not be directly related to our security, but a larger strategic interest of sustaining U.S. leadership.

My concern is that most of what the author proposed with the possible exception of A has been in the works for over a year.

It also seems many of his aspirations are based on assessing the situation, the world in general, as we desire it to be, rather than the way it really is.

Lets just hope we learned a lot from our mistakes with Iraq.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...97K0EL20130825

Reuters) - A U.S. military response to alleged chemical weapons attacks in Syria appeared more likely on Sunday after Washington dismissed the Syrian government's offer to allow U.N. inspection of the sites as "too late to be credible."