This is Obama's Kobayashi Maru.

Strictly from the point of view of US interests (although certainly not from a humanitarian one) the optimum strategy would be to go after his air force--on the ground. Not the planes, they are probably being dispersed now even as we speak, but the bases and support facilities. Take out the tank farms, weapons depots, machine shops, everything that keeps planes in the air. Without those, the operational capability of his air force will be seriously degraded, and that will take longer to rebuild than to get new aircraft. The Russians would probably replace those in a heartbeat anyway.

This will be a low-risk, low-cost strategy for us, and will not put our own planes or pilots in danger if we use our sea-launched cruise missiles, which are already paid for anyway. It will seriously cripple Syria as a regional power, lower the danger to her neighbors, and give the rebels a fighting chance and a new lease on life without necessarily assuring them victory. There's less chance of Iran or Russia getting directly involved, too, because the immediate danger to the Assad regime will be minimized. It is also the military option that will involve the least loss of Syrian lives--only air and ground crews will take casualties. Let him keep his AA missile batteries and radars, they will be of little use to Assad if he is not being bombed by manned aircraft, and they pose little danger to the rebels.

Air operations in Syria will be very difficult for us, we will need bases and overflight in Greece and Turkey, and we have no assurances they will be willing to help. Israel will be less tempted to get involved too, without an air force, the Syrians will pose little danger to them. Keeping Assad supplied will cost the Iranians and Russians lots of money, too. The former, especially, cannot really afford it.

This will punish Syria for using chemical weapons, which we must do now, but otherwise minimize the risk of escalation and of the war spreading to other countries. It is also an option that will be fairly easy to ramp up or down, if the situation should change.

But like I said, this strategy could prolong the war indefinitely; not bad for us (or Israel), but probably the worst thing that could happen for the Syrian people. But one bonus (for us) of a prolonged war is the damage being done to Al-Quaeda and Hezbollah. They are too busy fighting against, and for, Assad to mess with us or Israel.

I think Obama blew this one. He should have stayed out at all costs, never have threatened retaliatiion for the chemical warfare. But now that Syria has called our bluff, he has little choice but to back up his threat with action, or lose all credibility. At least, he still has the option of striking and then withdrawing, and minimizing the damage while still saving face. The longer and deeper we are involved there the more likely that events will spiral out of control.

And once again, Israel makes out like a bandit, while we have our tit in a wringer.