Reading the comments here, I wonder how many of the posters in this thread actually read the letter, which is reproduced in its entirety at the end of the Mother Jones piece. Frankly, there is nothing in the letter urging that the U.S. send in troops or otherwise commit to land combat.

The text of the letter merely urges our President, who has previously gone on record as stating that the significant use of chemical weapons would be a red line warranting a serious response, to back up those words. Now, one might argue whether President Obama putting his credibility with foreign powers on the line by declaring such a red line was wise in the first place. (Personally, I agree with the substantive position, but would have preferred more nuanced public pronouncements that leave the President more room to maneuver). What to do now that the red line appears to have been crossed is a different matter.

On that score, the letter urges the President to act decisively against a legitimate target, namely the military units that would have been involved in the use of chemical weapons and to do so with sufficient power to act as a deterrent to any in the Syrian governing regime who might wish to use them again.

Beyond that, the letter urges the President to provide assistance to adequately vetted moderate elements in the rebellion:

[T]he United States … accelerate efforts to vet, train, and arm moderate elements of Syria’s armed opposition, with the goal of empowering them to prevail against both the Assad regime and the growing presence of Al Qaeda-affiliated and other extremist rebel factions in the country. (Emphasis added)

Is there really any dispute that, if we are to assist anyone in the fight over who will control Syria in the future, we should be assisting legitimate moderates? Bear in mind that President Obama is on record as supporting a change of regime in Syria, so a letter urging him to support the true moderates so that Assad is not replaced by an even more radical regime is hardly an exclusively “necon” argument. To any who think we should not assist any true moderates that exist, who do you propose we support instead? Hizb’allah? The al-Nusra Front? Should we simply sit back and allow those groups to take power because they are better organized and better armed than the moderates?

Now, it is certainly possible that there are no “true moderates” in this war. I don’t buy that argument, which, IMO, is akin to the bigoted argument that Arabs and/or Muslims are not capable of anything but violent radicalism. Somewhere in Syria there are moderates. If experience is any guide, they are outnumbered, out-organized and outgunned on the field of battle by the radicals. It is, however, in our national interest to find them, identify them and assist them so that when the guns at last fall silent, they, rather than the radicals, lead their country, and the region, to a brighter future.