We agree with critics of U.S. intervention in Syria about one thing - a clear goal of such intervention should be spelled out.
That said, this is the only point we agree with critics on. And, we are comfortable with the goal being as vague as "protecting the Syrian people from further chemical weapons attacks" to as specific as "regime change in Syria."
Frankly, it is hard to understand how any civilized country can stand back and watch someone as ruthless as Bashar Assad continue in power. Leaders who use chemical attacks to slaughter innocents belong in a grave, not in power.
The last week has been astonishing because of the response not just of other countries, but many in this country who believe it is not our business if Assad uses chemical weapons on his own people.
Such a view, if it is adopted as official policy, will have us renouncing any role as a moral leader in the world.
Finally, we'd ask our leaders not to spell out in detail what an attack on Syria will look like - we are helping Assad ride out the attack. Similarly, announcing it will be a "limited response" is giving aid and comfort to this enemy of mankind.
Make Assad wonder which of our many weapons will hit him. Don't give him any hope of riding out its effects by calling it "limited."
In other words, scare the hell out of him like he has done to the poor people of his country.
* Editorials reflect the opinion of the publisher.