The Mercury's editorial voice seems a little schizophrenic on Syria, which I guess is to be expected, since the voice is actually several individuals.

To be clear: Pretend the "red line" remark never happened. What ought to be the US response when a dictator uses chemical weapons en route to killing 100,000 people, and it's clear that there can be no UN resolution because of Russia/China? Dirk? Denis? Others?

I think we'd be at the same juncture with or without the remark, and a limited strike with no ground presence seems to be the right idea. It's disappointing that there isn't a more supportive global chorus, but that's largely because our global credibility has been so compromised by Iraq/Guantanamo.

Beyond the obvious humanitarian/deterrent reasons for the planned strike, this seems like a chance to rebuild some goodwill.

You know, if it doesn't spiral out of control or anything.

What are the CRC zealots going to do if/when the Coast Guard says no way, Jose.