Assad has enough ways to kill people, like artillery shells.
Secretary of State John Kerry has spent the last two weeks debasing himself and his legacy by engaging in a level of scaremongering unseen since Colin Powell and Dick Cheney held center stage.
Unable to pound the facts (Assad will continue slaughtering civilians with or without chemical weapons, and there's nothing a few cruise missiles can do about it, and not even war supporters claim it will), and unable to pound the law (a U.S. attack would actually be illegal under international law), Kerry has resorted to pounding the table with outlandish claims.
His repeated references to "Munich" has him going Godwin more often than a wingnut neocon warblogger. His dismissal of those opposing a new war a disservice to his own anti-war history. He lost a presidential election against an opponent employing exactly these sorts of tactics, and it appears he learned the wrong lesson from that experience.
So now you have the bizarre scenario of Republicans pretending to be anti-war (as if they'd oppose such a strike from President Mitt Romney), while a Democratic administration screeches hysterically in pursuit of a new optional war. I mean, if ignoring Assad is just like ignoring Hitler, then why is our response going to be "unbelievably small"? Would this administration's response against Hitler be "unbelievably small", or is this threat nothing like that of the Nazis? I'll bet on the latter.
The news that Russia is leaning on Syria to surrender its chemical weapons, and that Syria is considering agreeing, is a bright spot of hope, and gives the administration a way out of the corner they have painted themselves into.
At best, Syria surrenders those weapons. It has perfected the art of killing its population without such weapons over the past two years. It doesn't need them. It can give up chemical weapons and continue slaughtering its people in a way that doesn't cross any Obama red lines. To some, I guess that would make him less of a monster.
If Syria delays and obfuscates (which is most likely), it would give the administration time to build international support for intervention. Perhaps Russia might feel burned enough that it abstains at the UN Security Council, which would get the administration one step closer to a legal attack. Either way, this is worth pursuing and would hand the administration a genuine victory over its rivals and naysayers.
In fact, that's the only way the administration wins. As its "unbelievably small" action plans are not going to stop the slaughter.
But this only highlights how absurd this entire debate is: best-case scenario, Syria gives up its chemical weapons. And then thousands of Syrians continue to die, including thousands of women and children, just as they have these past two years.
So will Kerry continue saying that we are "silent spectators to the slaughter", or will he be satisfied and move on to other matters, as the only slaughter worthy of Obama administration condemnation and action is chemically induced slaughter?
If the real goal is to stop the slaughter, period, then none of the solutions on the table will accomplish that.
11:15 AM PT: I missed Kerry's walkback of his diplomatic offer while working on this piece. This makes him, and the administration, look infinitely worse. This is a trainwreck.
11:19 AM PT: Obama's spokesman apparently walks back Kerry's walkback.
Q: Has the admin exhausted all diplomatic options with Syria? Carney: Well, we like this new Kerry-Russia idea and "are going to study it."
— @jbendery