Bill, that surely depends on what you want to accomplish, yes?

I learned that the first principle of war was "the selection and maintenance of the aim" which the Americans changed to "Objective".

You see the Brit use of "maintenance" rules out what is now called "mission creep". (But that is another story)

So let's stick with the yanks and the word "objective".

What would the objective of a Syria intervention be?

How and who would (or should be punished) for using chemical weapons? IMHO, around that "objective" should be set.

Bombing the hell out of a bunch of Syrian facilities and/or killing a few thousand Syrian grunts would achieve what exactly when those who made the decision to use these weapons go free?

Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/69275...#axzz2dhRDi1hk

We can act unilaterally, but I suspect it won't accomplish much if we don't get support from the regional actors. In fact it would be better for an Arab country to take the lead and we support, but the odds of that happening are politely very slim.