Outside the Beltway

f Assad is eating Cheerios, we’re going to take away his spoon and give him a fork.

Why are chemical weapons a “red line” in a war where so many have been killed?

Given that the vote count seems to be heading that way, this is a question worth examination.

The President has admitted that there is no imminent threat to the United States in Syria.

Things aren’t looking good for President Obama in the House of Representatives.

Bombing Country B to “send a message” to Country A is not a valid argument for bombing Country B.

Is U.S. planning against Syria moving beyond just chemical weapons?

President Obama seems to want to forget his red line.

A proposed Syria authorization being considered in the Senate places several limits on Presidential authority to act, but it’s unclear if those limits can actually work.

The president’s public dithering on Syria is drawing jeers from friend and foe alike.

Some questions that the Administration needs to answer before attacking Syria.

Could anyone have imagined a decade ago a scenario when the United States would go to war with France by our side and England on the sidelines?

Some Members of Congress are calling for a debate before any strikes on Syria. They’re absolutely right.

Persuasion is sometimes an important part of being president.

The United States will go to war without UN or NATO approval.

The White House confirmed today that the goal of any military intervention in Syria would be very limited. Which makes one wonder what the point of doing anything actually is.

There’s more than one way to look at the civil war in Syria.

We’re almost certainly going to launch punitive strikes against Syria. They’ll almost certainly be ineffective.

United States helped Saddam Hussein launch some of the worst chemical attacks in history against Iran.

John Kerry’s speech was the crossing of the Rubicon for US military action in Syria.

Western military action in the Syrian civil war now appears likely.

In both Egypt and Syria, it’s damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

As President Obama’s red line has been crossed more brazenly, he continues to sound reluctant to intervene in Syria while positioning forces to do just that.

The Syrian regime may have used chemical weapons again, this time in an even larger and more deadly attack.

Anti-Assad forces are committing atrocities in Aleppo.

Ostensible allies in the fight against the Assad regime, al Qaeda and the Free Syrian Army are killing each other.

Two polls indicate that most Americans oppose the President’s latest moves on Syria. This makes sense considering actual policy there seems to be entirely incoherent.

The U.S. is now confirming that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons. What’s next?

Signs and portents in the Middle East.

The infamous “red line” may not have been crossed after all. At least not by the Assad regime.

Is the White House distancing itself from the President’s “red line” remarks about Syria?

Arming the Syrian rebels may do nothing more than prolong a seemingly endless war, and pull the United States into a conflict it shouldn’t be involved in.