I am on the record as opposing an intervention in Syria in retaliation for the use of chemical weapons. I would ask those who feel differently to consider the following two questions. I am at work, so this will probably be a drive-by diary.
1. Syria has not ratified and refuses to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention, and they have only adopted the Geneva Convention (which says that chemical weapons will not be used against opposing forces). It is also doubtful that "customary international law" forbids the use of chemical weapons internally. It is hardly the case that killing of 1450 people with chemical weapons constitutes a genocide. If the United States is to champion international law, please explain why you believe that military action against Syria is appropriate and authorized.
2. It is reported that Syria has begun using chemical weapons because the Saudis have managed to arm rebels with anti-aircraft missiles -- thereby making it impossible for the Syrian government's forces to defeat the rebels with conventional forces. The United States (from 1950 onwards) had a force posture in Europe which said that the United States would use "all means at its disposal" in the event of a Soviet attack on Europe, if conventional arms were insufficient to defeat the Soviets. Why is it that the Assad regime's force posture is in violation on international law, while the force posture of the United States was (apparently) in keeping with International Law?
Thanks. More questions later