And you've ably outlined many of the reasons going to make that case that I endorse. But there are countervailing considerations:
Who would act with us? Would we have all of Europe arrayed against us? Would this benefit or harm us with respect to our vital trade war with China which is only superficially a trade war? Will this help reelect the President or cause his defeat? If defeated, what will transpire in the Persian Gulf then? What will occur with respect to defending America against the multifaceted threat presented by China?
The age-old question, how do you define victory? What price in blood must we pay? What price in cash and what price to our reputation?
One can name on the fingers of one thumb the number of wars that have gone as planned. And this raises the question, is a surgical airstrike enough? Would we need repeated airstrikes? Would we need boots on the ground? Do we want regime change? How do you accomplish that, with or without troops? What role will Russia play? What role will China play? What will the Arab street do, will it double down on terrorism?
What vital national interest of the United States is at stake? What other national interests would we be we jeopardizing?
We are not ready to make these judgments one way or the other. First we must establish the facts on the ground and, having established them, we must be sure that they are perceived to be true by the whole nation and by our allies. Only then can we begin to weigh the pros and cons of military action.
