The Syrian dilemma -- it gets worse

At the time, it seemed a good idea to have Congress debate and vote on the president's plan for airstrikes against Syria.

Now, with what seems almost certain defeat, the dilemma just gets more complex.   What is the message to Assad and to the world if Obama gives in and doesn't attack?   And what would be the reaction here at home?

And what is our humanitarian position then?

Here are some of the agruments I've heard opposing airstrikes:

1.  Although we react with horror to the use of neurotoxin gas, the number killed is miniscule in comparison with those who have died in Syria by conventional weapons.   Why does this cause us to retaliate, if not before?

2.  There are atrocities all over the world, every day.  We can't solved them all.

3.  Why spend all that money on missiles to send a symbolic message to a country that poses not threat to us, when we're cutting food stamps to our own hungry people and reducing jobs for teachers and first responders?

On the other side, proponents point out that many of the same people who were hawkish for us to take out Sadaam Hussein -- who had used chemical weapons -- are the same people who are condeming similar action by President Obama.   Is it simply because it is Obama?

Another good point:   the red line is that chemical weapons -- like torture and nuclear weapons -- are violations of the rules of war, agreed to by nearly 200 nations.   If you let Assad get away without any consequences, will that simply embolden others to be more aggressive -- say, Iran?

I do not know the answer.   I would not want to have to make the decision.

Ralph