A Long Ways From Consensus

Map of Syria (Washington Post) 

The Washington Post performs a public service by running Syria: the Very, Very Basics. It's helpful to learn a few facts about a country--such as its population is 22.5 million, ten percent of whom are Christians--before the United States starts killing a bunch of its people.

The article doesn't say whether Syria is a threat to the United States, whether the vital interests of the United States are at stake, whether the use of chemical weapons against its own people is sufficient justification for a U.S. military attack, or exactly what's supposed to happen next.

Update: the WaPo lists the five "smartest" arguments, positive and negative, concerning a Syrian intervention.

(Against) Intervention could actually help Assad.

(For) The norm against chemical weapons is worth preserving.

(Against) Strikes would only make things worse.

(For) Smart strikes could break the political deadlock.

(Against) Strikes would make little difference but to highlight larger U.S. failure.

IMHO, before military action is undertaken the arguments in its favor should be overwhelming. Moreover, a clear majority of the American people and their representatives in Congress should be in support. We are a long ways from consensus.