If the gas was used by the Assad regime, he (Assad) may not have ordered the attack or even known about it. If the ‘rebels’ used it, then they are already in possession of a weapon of mass destruction, so we need to worry if claims are they could be used against the US? I hear no evidence the US is proclaiming the opposition as freedom fighters. I hear a lot of reservations about who they really are, and what might follow. This seems to have explained the delayed intervention. US polls suggest the public is against the attack, but is that war weariness, or this particular scenario that they don’t like? Has the US angle been largely about protecting its own interests? Yes. Is there ever a case to argue for policy shaped by humanitarian causes. Probably, even if only measured by self interest. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t so political risk becomes ambiguous. How so?

The attacks will only inflame insurgents, and draw more people to their cause. But putting that and interests aside, can the US stand by and watch if the region erupts into violence? 1) Yes, but there will be a price to pay when they are asked why didn’t they, when they could have. 2) No, but there are always unintended consequences of taking sides.

One question that bothers me is how can the destruction of chemical weapons be contained, not just from collateral damage, but the expulsion of the gas from missile strikes?