Truth Out has the oped piece War on Syria: Twenty Pounds of Stupid in a Ten-Pound Bag. I’ll quote the beginning and the end of the piece.

I’m just going to throw this out on the stoop and see if the cat licks it up: instead of attacking Syria, how about we don’t attack Syria?
.
.
.
I think I read somewhere that Mr. Obama is a pretty smart guy. Now would be a fantastic time for him to prove it by coming up with an answer to this that does not involve cruise missiles, bombs and mayhem.

When, a few months ago, Obama first issued the ultimatum against using chemical weapons, it sounded to me like a pretty reasonable thing to do.  Now that we are facing the consequences, I hark back to an excuse we used to use in the Army to try to get out of almost any predicament involving the intervention of our superiors in rank, “Well, it sounded like a good idea at the time.”

The implication being, “Yes, I see why you want to mete out some punishment because it doesn’t sound like such a good idea anymore, but I am just a lowly soldier who can’t always think for himself.”

All of the talk about the things we could do to punish Bashar al-Assad were all tried when we wanted to stop the democratically elected government in Iran in 1953.  It didn’t stop them then.  It isn’t stopping Iran today when we try the same tactics.  It probably won’t stop al-Assad.  Except for saving face, what will we gain by spending billions of dollars on an effort that we know will not succeed and will only further enrage the Arab population of the Middle East?

What would happen if  we actually talked to the Russians and Chinese, since they are the stumbling blocks in getting anything out of the United Nations Security Council?  Instead of trying to convince them of our point of view, or going our own way if we fail, what if we really debated the pros and cons of what they want to do against what we want to do?  Could some actual, viable alternative course of action be figured out?

In the 1953 coup that we and the British created in Iran, the British used a clever ploy to get us to rescue them from the severe loss of control over the oil fields in Iran.  Rather than stating the need for the coup in those terms, they recast the issue as one of preventing the Communists in Russia from gaining control of the Iranian oil.  Apparently President Truman was smart enough to rebuff them, but Eisenhower fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Let’s not use the same inability to talk to the Russians (and Chinese) just like we were still in the cold war.

The issues in Syria are very tough ones.  Rather than resort to our brute strength, maybe it is time to use our brains.

In talking with my SO about this issue and blog post, we almost simultaneously came up with another idea.

A quote from the article brings the point home.

Doctors Without Borders seems pretty convinced it happened, despite the fact that the use of such weapons by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad doesn’t make a whole hell of a lot of sense, given the fickle nature of chemical weapons and how closely concentrated his own forces were near the area of the attack. A rogue military commander, perhaps? The rebels themselves?

So, who might gain by a use of chemical weapons?  The USA (CIA), Israel (Mossad), al-Qaida? So maybe the Russians are  right in saying that even if the chemical weapons attack is proven, we don’t know for sure who is responsible.  The Russians are saying that the UNSC has a protocol for finding the answers to these questions before they sanction military action.   Or should we just take the word of the CIA and the US administration that they have incontrovertible proof.  After all, the CIA has wiretaps. The recent NSA scandal has shown us how much the word of the clandestine part of our government is worth.  We also have plenty of experience with the hotheads in the Republican party that are calling for immediate action whether we know who is responsible or not.  If anyone has the motto “Ready, Fire, Aim” it is the Republicans and our own media.