Syria: At what cost?

What began as peaceful protests over two years ago has turned into a civil war in Syria and the use of chemical weapons. Obama said in his address to the Nation "We cannot resolve someone else's civil war through force." I agree. It is neither our place or anyone else's to help resolve an internal conflict of another country. Obama continues and says that on  August 21st thousands of Syrians were killed with poisonous gas which is a violation of the laws of war.  In 1997 we made an international agreement to ban chemical weapons and since this agreement was violated he wants to execute a targeted strike against Assad. He does go on to say that he feels the President is stronger with Congressional approval and will ask them to vote on it. That speech took place on Tuesday, September 10th just one day after Sec. John Kerry made a flippant comment when asked what Assad could do to prevent a US strike.

Sure. He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week. Turn it over, all of it, without delay, and allow a full and total accounting for that. But he isn’t about to do it, and it can’t be done, obviously.

Since Sec. John Kerry made that statement on Monday the news media has said perhaps that comment was not as off the cuff or flippant as it initially appeared to be. 

There are reports now that we are sending arms, small arms, to the rebels in Syria. The arms we are sending are machine guns and the like. Assad, in response to this has said:

"When we see the United States really wants stability in our region and stops threatening, striving to attack, and also ceases arms deliveries to terrorists, then we will believe that the necessary processes can be finalized. 

This morning the NY Times published an article written by Russian President Putin regarding Syria. To para phrase his plea to the American people he says that the decision to strike or otherwise engage a country with the use of force is up to the United Nations Security Counsel and any thing short of that would be viewed as an act of aggression. He threatens that a strike by the U.S. could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance. 

What do we do? 

Our President has made it very clear he wants to stop the use of chemical weapons in Syria by the use of force. We have threatened to do so and are now aiding the rebels by supplying them with arms. This is a passive aggressive way of trying to resolve someone else's civil war through force; something the President has said we cannot do. Assad has made it very clear he will not turn over his chemical weapons until we stop threatening him and stop arms deliveries to what he says are terrorists. And even if those two conditions were met it would take him another 30 days to deliver his stock pile. At this point it does not seem either leader is willing to bend. 

Obama says the U.S. is not the world's police. Perhaps he is right. Making a unilateral decision to strike Syria sounds to me like we are vigilantes.