In Part I I concluded that it was not only unreasonable but unlikely to assume anyone other then Assad gassed these people: So now what?
Well The Assad Regime has been an international criminal since the beginning of Papa Hafez's rule. Obama won't get the UN to approve a use of force against Syria (because of protection of Syria by China and Russia and the Bejing-Moscow consensus allied states). Key allies are backing out (so use of force by Nato is out)and there is no footing in US Law for the President to act. The President will wait for Congress to vote, but if Congress denies him he has expressed his desire to act without Congressional Approval.
Obama has a much simpler way to accomplish his goals The International Criminal Court. Syria like the US signed the treaty but never ratified it. And while that sets a very dangerous precedent lets pause for a moment and look at the broader issues.
Here is a taste of some of his crimes in Lebanon, which Pre-Date the Syrian Civil War. Rumors of the Assad regime assasinating Prime Minister Hariri are others. If the President places before the bar of the International Criminal Court these and other crimes of the Assad Regime he builds the political base of support to use force to Stabilize Syria (which I will be getting into in my third post).
We have a series of crimes against humanity, crimes against other countries, but the President does not make the case for them. Why?
The answer is very simple: The rebels winning leads to a furthering of a civil war (like their neighbor Lebanon). If Assad wins it leads to a Somalia like collapse and a civil war like Somalia/Lebanon. Thats because Syria is a actively failing state, the Civil War is only speeding that process along. Removing Assad or keeping Assad leads to no positive policy outcome for Syria or the United States. Removing Assad or Keeping Assad will not lead to a more stable Syrian regime which will be better for the Syrian people.
The truth is a force needs to occupy Lebanon to solve the problems and put the country back on the straight and narrow. But Obama ended the US Occupation of two countries (for Valid US Policy reasons), Removed a regime in another country (for invalid US policy reasons) and refused to occupy it (which has lead to further instability in Libya.). So the US Policy of Obama is a policy that's Anti-Imperial and Anti-Occupation, even if Occupation is the only way to achieve coherent and valid policy goals. But Obama feels a political need to do something.
So because we must do something, we will do something ineffective and inefficent. What should we do? That will be in Part III