[piercehawkeye45]

I would also like to see Obama attack Assad through non-military means - a class action malpractice suit would be hilarious - but the likely limited attack on Assad will accomplish two goals for Obama:

1) Attacking Assad for purely humanitarian reasons is one thing (something I disagree with) but once WMDs get involved then it is viewed differently. I do not feel as strongly but there are many policy makers that strongly believe any WMD use should be punished. Obama set the red line at chemical weapons (WMD) because of that - plus other reasons IMO - and now he must act on it. I'm not comfortable with our retaliation but allowing WMDs to be used is a potential slippery slope that many policy makers do not want to go down.

2) I think this attack will have as much realpolitik intentions as humanitarian. Right now our two biggest enemies in the Middle East, Al-Qaeda Islamist and Iran, are heavily invested in this civil war. While it is not in our (U.S.) interests to get involved right now, it is in our interests to make sure these two groups keep pouring their attention and money into the civil war instead of other activities. Lately, Assad has been gaining the upper advantage and a limited strike may balance the playing field. Also, on a side note, peace or balkanization is only possible if both sides feel they will not win alright so it also in our humanitarian interests to keep a level playing field.