NO, NO, NO to "boots on ground" in Syria

I can't believe that people with brains from either major political party are proposing this. But, a Democrat like Claire McCaskill, is showing a new lack of brains. The GOP, in general shows a mix of "distancing" from this idea while demanding Obama say how he's address the problems in Syria.

I don't care if Syria did use chemical weapons, and if Dear Leader made that a "bright line." The idea of "boots on the ground" in a place whose variety of Muslim traditions (some, like President Assad's Alawites, not even considered Muslim by all others), variety of Islamist groups, and outright terrorists make Iraq look like an island of sanity, is ridiculous. 

It's been 20 years, almost to the dot, to the US Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon, a bombing ultimately with Syrian connections. The country's a cesspool of conflicting drives, angles, and emotions.

At a minimum, any US ground-force involvement should be secondary to any troops organized by the Arab League in conjunction with Turkey.

Realpolitik, folks, realpolitik.

There's little we can do at ground level, without serious complications. And, we have no compelling national interests.

Now, if we want to do limited bombing of Assad government troops, that's one thing. Boots on the ground is hugely another thing, and hugely stupid.