{"id":8753,"date":"2013-08-26T14:34:31","date_gmt":"2013-08-26T04:34:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=8753"},"modified":"2013-08-27T11:43:21","modified_gmt":"2013-08-27T01:43:21","slug":"aspi-suggests-39","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/aspi-suggests-39\/","title":{"rendered":"ASPI suggests"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Damascus,<\/a>Following what was probably a chemical weapon attack in Syria last week<\/a>, the White House appears to be moving closer to possible military action<\/a> (and here<\/a>). But while there is tremendous pressure on President Obama to act decisively, there appear to be very few good military options. Eliot Cohen writes<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

The temptation here is to\u00a0follow the Clinton administration\u2019s course<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 a\u00a0futile salvo of cruise missiles<\/a>, followed by self-congratulation and an attempt to change the topic. It would not work here. A minority regime fighting for its life, as Bashar al-Assad\u2019s is, can weather a couple of dozen big bangs. More important, no one \u2014 friends, enemies or neutrals \u2014 would be fooled. As weak as the United States now appears in the region and beyond, we would look weaker yet if we chose to act ineffectively. A bout of therapeutic bombing is an even more feckless course of action than a principled refusal to act altogether.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

On the home front, ASPI will be hosting the Great Defence Debate<\/a> on 29\u00a0August, in a week where Defence issues are likely to play a larger role in the Election than they have so far. If you have a question which you think should be asked, you can send it to us here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Here are some of the questions we have received so far:<\/p>\n