Any use of CBRN weapons is of course a special case though. I think that it should be left to the UN to establish what happened here and let appropriate action come from there. If the government of Syria used the weapons then they should be properly sanctioned. If the rebels used the weapons then maybe it's time that we coordinated with Syria to put some blue helmets on the ground.

We are waiting on the "Official" UN report, but accounts on the ground show that CBRN (specifically nerve agents) were, in fact, deployed against civilian targets. The agents were delivered by rockets (likely SCUDs) which are known to be in Al Assad's arsenal, and the current intelligence seems to clearly implicate Al Assad in ordering the attacks (according to mainstream media).

Civilian injuries in the affected region are consistent with a nerve agent attack ("neurologic syndrome" is a hallmark of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors such as G-series nerve agents like Sarin as well as VX). More terrifying is that there are several large weapons depots where considerable stockpiles of chemical agents are known to be stored - and in the wake of a deteriorating Assad regime security at these installations may fail and allow those weapons to fall into the hands of terrorists capable of launching an attack on US/Western assets in the region or possibly in their home countries.

I don't want to see the USA involved in another ground war - we've already lost too many US, allied, and civilian lives in Iraq and Afghanistan in failed attempts at regime change - to say nothing of the cost of another war which the already over-extended US budget cannot handle. Unfortunately, our hand is being forced on the matter by some yet-to-be-determined player who has clearly demonstrated a capability and willingness to deploy CBRN weapons against civilian targets. That, combined with current credible threats from Islamist terror cells against US assets at home and abroad constitutes a necessity for swift and decisive action to neutralize the chemical weapons stockpiles before any more attacks can be carried out. Every moment we delay gives malevolent factions more time to acquire and deploy chemical weapons, and that is reason enough to act.

...personally I'd say just drop a few kilotons of napalm on the weapons depots and be done with it. Heat to that degree will render chemical agents harmless (by means of disintegration) and will sharply reduce the risk of another chemical attack with minimal risk to US and Allied personnel. Barring that, a quick snatch-and-grab invasion (by a true multinational task force like NATO) to seize and destroy the chemical weapons stockpiles will help to reduce civilian casualties and reduce the risk that terrorist groups will obtain any WMDs amid the chaos.

The Syrian people in their right to self-determination can feel free to slug it out until they're content with their country, but the use of chemical weapons by anyone under any circumstances is absolutely unacceptable. CBRN weapons are a threat to all of humanity, and it is the duty of all able sovereign states to curtail their use.

Nobody disputes that chemical weapons are being used against civilians, but who is using them is the question. You say they were likely deployed by scuds; that's speculation. Home made rockets are a very real possibility. It's also plausable that these storage sites have already had their security compromised earlier in the civil war, giving rebels access to these weapons. We simply don't know who used them. Preparations for war are premature.

It's not as simple as an air-attack or SF snatch&go. We're not going to get all of the sites, that's just the reality of the situation. We also can't conduct strikes on the weapons sites without taking out other government and military structures in the process. We're talking about an operation which would tip the balance in the favor of the rebels- the rebels who are the very islamic terrorists you worry about. We're setting outselves up for a repeat of Soviet Afghanistan by taking out a strong secular gov't to be replaced by a deeply islamic state. At which point those weapons we couldn't hit would no longer be in the hands of a national strong-man trying to keep in power, but a weak muslim state which may seek to export jihad.

This isn't just about the risk of CBRN weapons being deployed today, this is about who is going to be in power to use what's left of those weapons tomorrow. We can't force our way in to scoop up the bombs. Syria has been cooperating with, and even calling upon the UN for assistance. Instead of planning to force our military in there agaist Al Assad we should seek to put blue-helmets on the ground to guard these weapon sites and help stabilize the government.

I agree that toppling Al Assad would create a power vacuum that could potentially be filled by Islamists or other hostile groups, but the rebels are not a homogenous group, and a large chunk of them (if not the majority) are not Islamists, but simply people who oppose Al Assad's regime. Al Assad is not an asset to the West - if you'll recall that Syria had been implicated as a breeding ground for Madrases and other terrorist assets well before the civil war began - especially groups like Hezbollah which threaten US Allies (especially Israel). Assad does not deserve any support against the rebels - he is a murdering tyrant who stands against everything we in the West believe in such as freely elected governments, individual liberties, human rights, etc. His people clearly want him out of power, and that's their perogative to wage war against his government as is every peoples' right to self-determination.

The main issue is to eliminate the CBRN weapons threat, since use of these weapons by ANY side is unacceptable. If destroying Assad's chemical arsenal compromises his regime, so be it - it's better than letting him gas his own people. The longer those depots remain standing, the greater the likelihood of another chemical attack - whether its Assad gassing his own people again or the rebels using it on perceived government supporters or a third party like Al Qaeda gaining access to the chemical stockpile and using those weapons against us or our allies. We need to take the CBRN stockpiles off the playing field immediately or they're going to be used again by someone.

And it might not need to be a Special Forces operation. We send Assad an ultimatum to surrender the weapons depots to the UN and international forces for disposal. If he refuses, an international coalition would storm the depots from bases in Turkey and Lebanon or with an amphibious assault from ships in the Mediterranean, supported by airstrikes and cruise missiles to clear the way to the sites. Any non-coalition military forces along the path, government or rebel, can either throw down their weapons and surrender or be destroyed. We move in quickly, accomplish our objectives, and then leave entirely - just like an improved version of Desert Storm.

With the chemical weapons stockpiles neutralized, the Syrians can fight it out on their own. We just need to ensure that no more chemical attacks occur.

Thanks, loony