The strongest point President Obama has in launching a military strike on Syria in retaliation of Assad using chemical weapons is the following statement, made in his press conference at the G-20:
THE PRESIDENT: My goal is to maintain the international norm on banning chemical weapons. I want that enforcement to be real. I want it to be serious. I want people to understand that gassing innocent people, delivering chemical weapons against children is not something we do. It’s prohibited in active wars between countries. We certainly don’t do it against kids. And we’ve got to stand up for that principle.
It is the point that sways me a little, but then the President says something further about the aftermath (i.e. if we attacked and then Assad used the chemical weapons again) that puts we back in the no-intervention witness:
THE PRESIDENT: Is it possible that Assad doubles down in the face of our action and uses chemical weapons more widely? I suppose anything is possible, but it wouldn’t be wise. I think at that point, mobilizing the international community would be easier, not harder. I think it would be pretty hard for the U.N. Security Council at that point to continue to resist the requirement for action, and we would gladly join with an international coalition to make sure that it stops.
And let's say that happens, and the international community is swayed to get involved. What is the goal of further action? It is obvious, to get rid of Assad and to get his chemical weapons. How do we do that? Invasion.
Boots on the ground.
No, Mr. President. No.
