re: #72 Charles Johnson

I don’t know if it’s any kind of rule, but according to Wikipedia the generally accepted definition of surgical strike implies a surprise attack. And this is certainly not going to be that.

So if the US does a military strike on Syria, it is supposed to:

1) be severe enough to deter future use of chemical weapons

2) be mild enough that it doesn’t alter the Syrian balance of power

3) have no surprise at all

4) not get the US bogged down in a lengthy Syrian intervention.

I can’t tell if this is a case of pick any two of the inconsistent objectives, or pick any one.