Syria is not Iraq

[arely staircase]

Here's what you need to know about the constantly evolving situation there, and the best of our no-good options

Great powers have the option and leeway to behave in contradictory and hypocritical fashion. It’s actually in their job description. We can intervene in Libya and not in Syria; we support an Arab Spring in Egypt but not in Saudi Arabia without blinking an eye.

Libya was low-hanging fruit; it had no allies, air defenses or WMD. And America could act with the support of a Security Council resolution and with NATO as the implementing arm. Syria is fundamentally different. It’s far more important than Libya, to be sure. But it’s also far more difficult to manage. And there’s no compelling case that has yet been made – neither moral nor strategic — that trumps the risks and uncertainties for military intervention, certainly not for the U.S. playing the lead role in doing so...

How it will end, other than badly, is not clear. But Obama is right to be risk-averse, not risk-ready, on Syria, and very disciplined about avoiding a slippery slope toward military action. I still believe in my former boss Colin Powell’s notion that if you break it you own it. In this case, Syria is already broken. But at the end of the day, I believe Barack Obama is smart enough not to be stuck with the check.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/syria_what_can_the_u_s_do/