What Sort of Response?

Robert Reich posted:

"Cliff notes on a potentially disastrous decision. (1) Were Syrian civilians killed by chemical weapons? Yes. (2) How many? Estimates vary. (3) Was Assad responsible? Probably but not definitely. (4) Should the world respond? Yes. (5) What’s the best response? Economic sanctions and a freeze on Syrian assets. (6) What are the advantages of bombing Syria with missiles? (a) Highly visible response, (b) no American troops on the ground. (7) What are the disadvantages? (a) Syrian civilians will inevitably be killed, (b) it will fuel more anti-American, anti-Western sentiment, thereby increasing the ranks of terrorists in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East, (c) our involvement will escalate if Assad or others use additional chemical weapons or engage in retribution against the us or Israel, (d) we have no exit strategy, (e) most of our allies aren’t with us, and we can’t be the world’s policeman everywhere, (f) it will distract us from critical problems at home, (g) the Syrian rebels are not our friends. (8) So why is Obama pursuing this so vigorously? (Your theory?)"

And that is what drives me a little crazy right now.  I agree with him.  "War weary" does not begin to describe where I am on this Syrian intervention.  We would likely be much better off finding other ways to corner the Syrian government without creating more terrorists in the process.  The current drum beat seems to stem mostly from those seeking even more military action.  We absolutely need the the international community with us... we cannot continue to be the sole player in dramas like this.  The Europeans could probably get behind asset seizure and it the Russians would find the price for that much higher than our bombing hte Syrians.  

There are just too many unknowns to figure out if bombs are going to get the world community where we want to be on this outlawed attack with sarin gas.