If Bomb Syria Policy was trying to DO Something...

[cthulu2016]

I am not saying the following should be done, but am saying that it would be far superior to what it appears will be done.

I can see a hypothetical super-power going to Assad and saying this:

We do not want you using nerve gas. We also do not want the rebels taking power and using nerve gas. We consider Syria far too chaotic to have any nerve gas.

Round up all nerve agents you have and turn them over to the UN for decommissioning, and we will not militarily intervene in this civil war at this time.

Fail to do so, and we will destroy your command and control structure and as your air force, and most of your armor and artillery.

So the logic of having the weapons has reversed. Having these weapons is now diminishing your security and power.

I am not suggesting that would be sure to work, but it would be no more prone to not work than whatever foolishness we will end up doing, and it would have the virtue of seeking a comprehensible goal.

(That approach did work in Iraq, by the way. We simply refused to take yes for an answer, but that isn't the approach's fault.)

[HooptieWagon]

1. I agree.

That its a noble idea, that likely would be rejected by both sides. Would be worth trying, if the US were ever to attemp a diplomatic solution.

The proposed limited strike is a sure loser. It will not eliminate CWs or prevent their use. It will not drive Assad from power. More likely will be the opposite. Assad will appear stronger for surviving a US assault, will be emboldened to use CWs, and likely launch retalitary attacks on US allies (possibly State-sponsored terrorism). Further, US strikes will certainly kill some civilians. Possibly even more than the CW attack. What exactly is that supposed to accomplish?