UPDATE: Oops, I missed one particular wack-job who claims the U.S. government is fabricating the grounds for attack–Ron Paul and his buddy Alex Jones. 

The U.N. inspectors have just left Syria and are on their way to report what they learned, there is speculation about what the United States will do, and I think it's important to talk about what we should do before we actually do it.

In my view the United States should not launch military strikes against Syria for the following reasons:

1. There is no legal authority to do so.

As antiwar activists argued correctly before Bush's invasion of Iraq, violations of international law do not justify unilateral military action.  If Syria has violated international law by gassing its own citizens, as seems likely, that still doesn't give us authority to attack Syria without a resolution by the Security Council. No resolution will be forthcoming because both Russia and China are certain to veto it, but that isn't a reason to sidestep the Security Council. Rather, it is testament to the power of international institutions. If we want to see international law enforced that must include the provisions of law that prohibit unilateral military attacks.

In addition, without Congressional action the administration would have no authority to wage war on a sovereign nation. It is debatable whether the constitutional grant of authority to declare war to the Congress has fallen into desuetude since World War II, but those of us who argued that Bush's invasion of Iraq without a formal declaration of war, even in the light of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, cannot sit back and argue for a lesser standard for Obama.

2. The situation in Syria does not affect the strategic interests of the United States. Like Iraq in 2003, Assad has not attacked or threatened the United States, poses no threat to the United States, and there is no change, either for the better or the worse, that the outcome of the Syrian civil war will bring to the U.S. national interest.

3. We can't control or predict the outcome. 

 This should be an easy one, right? Let's look at world history since World War II. Pahlavi. Najibullah. Hussein. Qaddafi. Mubarak. The Taliban. Every one deservedly belonged on the list of the worst guys in the world in their time, and any sensible person concluded that they were utterly unfit to rule. Nevertheless, we should know by now that the aftermath of the toppling of the worst guy in the world doesn't necessarily make things better, either for their victims, the country, or the world. Even though people have been fond of saying “Assad must go”, do we really imagine that replacing the ally of Iran and Hezbollah with some collection of fanatics under the al Qaeda banner will be any better? Especially in the Middle East, as repugnant as it is to tolerate the vicious thugs that run things, the alternative is often even worse.

 4. We can't stop Assad from killing more civilians.

 I think the weakest antiwar argument is that the government didn't carry out the attack. Sure, there are arguments that it was not in the government's strategic interest, but there are intercepted communications and serious questions about whether the rebels have the technology to carry out such an attack. Still, even if we assume that the government was responsible for the attack, nothing we do is going to fix this and prevent Assad from doing it again. We don't even know if a “targeted”, “surgical” attack will prompt him to do more attacks.

 We can't bring back the people who were killed and a military strike won't prevent future slaughter, whether by unconventional or conventional weapons.

 Really, I don't think there is any strong or compelling argument that we should launch even a limited military attack on Syria. 

 And yet, some nuance is in order, and I encourage people to engage in nuance rather than hyperbole.  

For instance, Obama is not Bush and Syria is not Iraq. Many of us are unhappy with some of the things Obama has done, but anyone who is seriously disappointed with his performance wasn't paying attention. For the most part he has done what he promised he would do, from his promise to bring our troops home from Iraq (which we liked) to his promise to escalate in Afghanistan (which we didn't) to his promise to close Guantanamo and try terror suspects in the United States (tried but was blocked). Obama has governed as he ran: as a centrist who opposed the Iraq war and had a somewhat liberal domestic policy agenda.

Still, think back to 2003. It was clear beyond any doubt, even before the invasion, that the Bush administration was fabricating  evidence to support his predetermined decision to invade Iraq. Even the most cynical opponents of a military strike on Syria can't make even a credible case that the evidence presented by the administration is fabricated. Possibly incorrect or misinterpreted, sure, but not fabricated. From what I can tell, the main claims about lies come from the Syrian or Russian governments or from fringe groups like truthers or Larouche supporters. When we see evidence from someone credible, like the overwhelming evidence we had in 2003 about the yellowcake and aluminum tube lies we can talk about it again.

In addition, what is being proposed is not a massive, Iraq-style invasion, but a limited strike. I still think it's a bad idea, but claiming Obama is a bloodthirsty warmonger who is eager to invade, conquer, and occupy Syria does nothing but undermine your credibility.

Since Bush stole the 2000 election our politics have become incredibly polarized. Bush had no legitimacy and pretty much everything he did was not only wrong, but also malicious. That does not mean, though, that everything that someone in power does that we disagree with is both wrong and malicious.

So I'm opposed to an invasion, and even to a cruise missile attack, but if Obama does it I won't start thinking he's Hitler.