Okay, I'm trying to wrap my head around this in real time. News reports make it sound like a military strike is a foregone conclusion, it's just a matter of timing and/or going it alone without an allied coalition, international (or possibly US congressional) approval?
Too many conflicting "goals" being bandied about. While the Humanitarian reason sounds good, it's also a hypocritical cherry-picking that makes me skeptical (regarding outrage over chemical weapons use that went unchallenged in Viet Nam, the 80's, and many times since).
Where's the chess game analysis of three moves ahead....and how unintended consequences could lead the entire region to literally explode? Where's the butt honest debate about "national interests" that seems like code for warning Iran or Pakistan about their nuclear weapons...or is it really about protecting the 'image' of the US as a military superpower, retaining influence over the region, and/or trying to 'prove' something to Russia ahead of the G-8?
"War fatigue is no reason to back away from our responsibility", says Sec of State Kerry. Really? Why is it always a US "responsibility" to intervene across the globe....when we're barely out of Iraq and still engaged in Afghanistan? The US has a military presence, with military bases all over the world, and at some point it's either unsustainable or just stupid.