Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country.

I think this statement is true, and I think it's evidenced by the overthrow of pretty much every dictator in the mid-east; they all have just a small enough majority of extremist Muslims that that faction always wins the day.

It is sad (unbelievable, really) that Putin has become a voice of reason. WTF kind of world do we live in where Putin, a guy who unapologetically throws his political opponents in jail willy-nilly, has to be on the side of common sense, reason and law, because we've derelicted those things years ago? Does he have ulterior motives? Certainly. But I'm not sure it matters why he's right, just that he's right in this case (and I'm convinced he is right). We have no business getting into this fight. It's a no win for us any way it turns out. We should stick to the business of humanitarian aid here.

It's also interesting that he suggests that the opposition may have released the chemical weapons, not a line you hear often in the American media, but often suggested in the foreign media (so I'm told by people I know who can read Arabic). Bascially the argument goes like this: There was a chemical weapons attack in August just two days after inspectors arrived, and it took place about 5 miles from where they were known (by the government and everyone else) to be staying. Why in god's name would Assad do such a thing in such proximity to them when he controlled their movements from the outset? It doesn't make sense. This isn't evidence, but it's definitely curious.

It's obvious that we can't win by any loose definition (perhaps Obama will adopt the Bush Doctrine, which is to wait and see what happens then call that a win? Can't lose that way; it's brilliant!). So what's the point? Is it about getting rid of Iran's biggest Arab ally? Is it just about the US saving face after drawing an arbitrary "red line"? Any other guesses?