As the ongoing debate in Congress makes clear, the decision on whether to strike Syria isn't the usual bipartisan one. Here are two voices on the right who come to very different conclusions:
- Peggy Noonan, opposed: What's the strategy again? "A small, limited strike will look merely symbolic, a face-saving measure," she writes in the Wall Street Journal. "A strong, broad strike opens the possibility of civil war, and a victory for those as bad as or worse than Assad." The world must send a message to Syria's regime, but a military strike isn't the answer. "Sometimes it shows strength to hold your fire." Read her full column.
- Bill Kristol, in favor: Republicans might be tempted to vote no to signal their lack of confidence in President Obama, but that would be a mistake, writes the editor of the Weekly Standard. They'd be weakening the country along with the president. "A party that for at least two generations has held high the banner of American leadership and strength should not cast a vote that obviously risks a damaging erosion of this country’s stature and credibility abroad," he writes. "For reasons both fastidiously statesmanlike and crassly political, Yes is the right vote." Read his full column.