“Questions are already swirling about the endgame as the Obama administration prepares for a likely strike against Syria as punishment for an alleged chemical weapons attack in its civil war.” writes Lolita C. Baldor for the Associated Press.
Capitol View: Franken, Klobuchar: Chemical weapons use must have consequences
National security experts and some U.S. officials question whether a limited strike can have any lasting impact on Syrian President Bashar Assad, or whether it will simply harden Assad’s resolve. And it’s not clear how much the military operation could help the beleaguered and splintered Syrian opposition, or lessen concerns that hard-line rebels may not support America if they do seize control of the country.
A limited, short-term operation, however, may be a compromise between military leaders, who have warned against entering a civil war, and a White House determined to show that President Barack Obama meant it when he said last year that the use of chemical weapons would cross a red line.
The broader objective is to damage the Syrian government’s military and weapons enough to make it difficult to conduct more chemical weapons attacks, and to make Assad think twice about using chemical weapons again.
Senior national security leaders met again at the White House on Tuesday as the administration moved closer to an almost certain attack on Syria in the coming days. The most likely military action would be to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles off U.S. warships in the Mediterranean Sea. The Navy last week moved a fourth destroyer into the eastern Mediterranean and it is expected that the British would also participate in an attack. Read more
2/2 Britain has drafted a resolution condemning the chemical weapons attack by Assad & authorising necessary measures to protect civilians.
— David Cameron (@David_Cameron) August 28, 2013
Today’s Question: Do you support a “limited strike” against Syria?