I have a number of links on this GD thread re Syria

[karynnj]

54. This is frustrating

I think they have - for all but those using Russian media as their new go to source - have succeeded in convincing people that there was likely back up for that they likely can't show. As the real number is likely not known, why not round off to the nearest thousand - as the French did with almost the same estimate. (I think those wanting to say that the Doctors Without Borders shows it is much smaller given their number from hospitals they deal with ignores many never made it to a hospital.)

They also have done as well as could be expected in getting people to agree that action of some kind should be taken. They were less successful in convincing people that MILITARY action of any kind should be taken -- and even fewer that the type of military action VERY VAGUELY described should be taken. All I have heard is that it would target Assad's ability to use chemical weapons and would not change the outcome of the conflict itself. That seems a very hard task to accomplish both things.

Even worse, is that they have not convinced Congress that they have an overall plan. Because Assad is the ruler, everyone against him is lumped into "the rebels" and many here (and elsewhere) have held US responsible for anything done by any rebel.

From one article, Dempsey backed the plan by Petraeous and Clinton to arm the rebels back in 2011 when the civil war really started to get violent. He did however give a very frank opinion shortly before the chemical weapon attack that spoke of the US doing anything militarily as not worth it, very expensive and unlikely to "work".