I voted in the affirmative. When I get a chance in the next day or so, I’m going to page all my reasons for intervention, and then I’m going to play Devil’s advocate and argue for those opposed.

The short version:

The CWC and Geneva Conventions aren’t merely some abstract document. It’s a call to action to stop use of these weapons, and to protect civilian populations. Assad is purposefully using these weapons as a means to show he’s going to fight to the end, bolstering his supporters, but also signaling to everyone that he’s going to do anything and everything within his power to remain in power.

There’s going to be no golden parachute route for him. No one is going to give him a one-way ticket to a island hideaway in exile. He’s going to remain in power or die trying.

The opposition know that they’re going to either have to eliminate the regime, or they’re going to face still more carnage. And if the opposition wins, then Assad’s allies are going to be in line for a bloodbath of their own for supporting Assad’s use of WMD. And all that will have repercussions on Syria’s neighbors too - an exodus of still more refugees.

On the other hand, intervening means potentially giving al Qaeda and Islamists the upper hand in a fight where they may use yet another failed state as a beachhead to carry out future attacks against the US and its interests in the region and around the world. Forget stability here - it’s about being predictable. Assad is predictable; AQ and the Islamists are predictable in only that they’re going to go after the US, Israel and Western interests in the region increasing the chances for chaos.