Kathleen Parker, in today's Washington Post, chimes in on the question of whether or not the U.S. should launch military strikes on Syria: "To bomb or not to bomb, that is always the question."
She is correct, and notes that the answer has been given all over the country, from top to bottom: Limited ordinance tosses on Syria could ultimately explode. And the all-but-fact is an assault will be a strategic failure. But, golly darn, those explosions look so cool. But, they're a waste of time and threaten stability in that part of the world... what stability there is.
The use of chemical weapons is horrible, yes, but violence is horrible. As Parker asks, why all of a sudden is there a desire to attack Syria after the use of those weapons? Inhumanity was going on well before all that happened.
My own opinion is: Stay out. You're asking for trouble. And you've been good at asking for trouble for a while.
U.S. credibility runs deeper than Syria