Syria, solved

Evidently there's some hand-wringing going on in the U.S. gummint regarding what we should do in Syria: Lots of blood being shed there, and little prospect for a good resolution. Even the U.N. is folding their laughably mis-named "peacekeeping" op.

Drew at Ace's has a good post on this, worth reading. And be sure to read the comments too.

Short answer is that we shouldn't do *anything.* Reason: It won't save any lives, and both sides will end up hating us more than they do now. Cold but spot-on.

Let me offer a variation: Get Obama on TV and have him very loudly agonize about how *awful* the killing is (said with really sad face), and how we jus' wish *so much* that the shooting would stop. Then say that because He is preezy now, the U.S. has given up on that military intervention stuff. I mean, we tried it in Iraq, got 4000 of our troops killed, spent a couple of trillion bucks and everyone hates us.

On Obie's watch we flew bombing missions in support of the rebels in Libya. No U.S. troops killed but the new rebel gummint hates us just the same. SO...no more of that, thank you.

Of course since this is King Barack, winner of the Nobel peace prize (like, a week after he was crowned), everyone will believe him. And then to put a thumb in America's eye, they'll keep fighting until one side runs out of fighters or weapons.

Such a tragedy.