A Moral Imperative

("Responding to Syrian Atrocities")

It feels as if the President is trying to thread the eye of a needle. Don't act too early, or too late. Don't do too much or too little. Don't wait for approval through the United Nations, but don't move forward without a broad coalition. Don't ignore but don't get really involved.

While there appears to be a compelling moral imperative for all civilized nations to respond forcefully to the horror of the utilization of chemical weapons in Syria, the world is far too complicated for there to be a universal reply. Thus, the United States is once more thrust in the position of leading a charge to impose at least the smallest amount of sanity to the insanity of a conflict in which you murder your own indiscriminately.

It is understood that this won't end well. Our insertion may not even cause Assad to reconsider the wisdom of his actions.  No winner will emerge as a result of an intervention that will be as much of a statement of outrage as a military strike. Yet the sight of the lifeless bodies of the innocent men, women and children whose only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time, mandates an unequivocal answer from our leader and our country.