Syria - President Obama Found the Best Balance

President Obama got the diplomatic/force fulcrum balance right.  

Indeed, Obama may eventually get an A for handling the Syrian chemical weapons crises.  It's too soon to tell and, certainly, the President won't have a good report card from suffering Syrians, who are desperately waiting for US intervention against their oppressive President Assad. But, history will give President Obama an A for the diplomacy of restraint, while he stood up for those killed in genocide. Although Syrian Rebels craved a US military response, the best outcome is the destruction of all chemical weapons.

Great leadership requires confidence in times of crises, coupled with the ability to engage in risk taking.  President Obama displayed both characteristics when he decided to hold Syria's President Bashar al Assad accountable for the genocide of over one thousand civilians on August 21, 2013, as a result of his government attacking them with Sarin gas, while they slept.  Assad deserved an attack by American cruise missiles to retaliate on behalf of the dead innocents.   In fact, Assad still deserves to experience the terror or an attack. Nevertheless, sometimes, calculated restraint is a stronger weapon than force, especially if use of military intervention is still, meaningfully, an alternative.

Along the timetable of this crisis, President Obama walked a precariously difficult decision making path, with very little, if any, political safety net. Nevertheless, he pushed the world to the brink of expecting a US attack on Syria, to hold Assad accountable for using deadly chemical weapons to kill civilians in a "chemical massacre". 

Meanwhile, Obama was accused of being too aggressive on the left, and not forceful enough from the right, while the American people screeched "stop!", to our Congress, who didn't have paid lobbyists to intervene on behalf of the dead Syrian civilians.  Frankly, Americans are, justifiably, just plain sick and tired of getting involved in more wars, when our national security isn't threatened, in spite of proof that innocent people were slaughtered somewhere else.  

At any point in the Syrian crisis, the situation could have catastrophically fallen apart. Then, unexpectedly,  Russian President Vladimir Putin leaped at an opportunity to appear like a peacemaking visionary, a political savior, to avert a deteriorating crisis. This scenario was a "made for Putin" epic opportunity.  Putin made a surprise offer to broker a deal with Assad, for the purpose of destroying the Syrian chemical weapons arsenal.  (A question in my mind is if Putin ever consulted Assad before he made the diplomatic rescue attempt.) At this point, a "destroy the chemical weapons" deal is nearly accomplished, because of Secretary of State Kerry's diplomatic expertise, well demonstrated in the mix of the drama.

So, the world waits to see if Obama's balance of force, mixed with the diplomacy of our unlikely ally in Russian President Putin, can succeed.  It's not unlike walking across the Grand Canyon on a tight rope.  It's been successfully done, albeit with enormous risk.  

At this point, President Obama's leadership and Secretary of State Kerry's quick negotiating under pressure are diplomatic successes. They get A's.

But, the outcome is still unknown, like walking only half way across the Grand Canyon on a tight rope.

Aerial risk walker Nek Wallenda had confidence he could cross the Grand Canyon on a tight rope, in a death defying act of courage, Nevertheless, with all his confidence, Willenda didn't know, with 100 percent certainty, whether or not he could really do it, without falling. Anything could have happened including the remote risk of the rope breaking or a sudden gust of wind sweeping him into the abyss.  But, Wallenda was successful. He had confidence. He knew he could do it and he did do it. 

President Obama had the confidence he needed to put his trust in diplomacy, rather than force, to prevent President Assad from using chemical weapons against anybody else, including American military forces.  The world also knows, as a result of the US-Russian diplomacy, how the world's biggest super powers won't tolerate chemical weapons, period!

There's no way the Russians and President Putin could have pressured Syrian President Assad to agree to a ban on chemical weapons, without US President Obama's pressure. Anyone who believes President Putin and President Assad would agree to destroy the Syrian chemical weapons arsenal without the US threat of force is, frankly, delusional.  

Nevertheless, my sympathies continue to be with Syrian civilians who were put to death in their sleep by Sarin poison gas, because of Assad's ambition to remain in power.  My support for a targeted military intervention against Assad continues, because he deserves to be held accountable for his evil genocide of civilians.  Unfortunately, however, I also believe Syria and the world will be better served if Assad destroys his chemical weapons arsenal.  It's the most desirable and humane outcome, if it is achieved.
Clearly, Assad would never have considered admitting his country even had chemical weapons, without the tragic chemical massacred martyrs. They deserve retribution and Assad must be held accountable.  Assad's tight rope toward power and control was cut when he supported the decision to kill civilians with Sarin gas.  

President Obama found the right diplomatic groove to avert an international crises, even in the face of a genocide of civilians. President Assad, on the other hand, is falling into an abyss of evil doers, like Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein.

President Vladimir Putin's New York Times Puff Piece - No Compassion Just Lecture

 Shame on our US Congress for letting the Syrian genocide fall into the trap of domestic quarreling. Now, as a result of the US Congress not having the benefit of an anti-genocide lobby, paid legal help for Syrian civilians, their legislative failure gave way to a New York Times lecture on world leadership from the Russian President Vladimir Putin. He speaks like he's the mythical partner of Snow White's nemesis. You remember the Snow White egotist who said, "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the best leader of them all?". Well, that evil witch in the Snow White fairy tale could be Putin's partner; or, maybe, his fictional (or not so fictional) mentor.

Russian President Vladimir Putin accomplished something with his egotistical lecture to Americans in The New York Times. Congratulations to The New York Times! Putin's op-ed lecture has certainly brought international attention to your newspaper's website and that's a very good thing. Otherwise, however, the lecture itself is a puff piece intended to get Putin's name on the front page of international news. Too bad Putin didn't have a fish to kiss where his name is in the op-ed by line.

Most disturbing in the lecture Putin gave us was his complete lack of compassion for the Syrian civilians who were killed in the Sarin gas attack on August 21, 2013.

Although Republicans are now self-righteously outraged about Putin's audacity, giving the US a lecture in The New York Times, the fact is, the lack of support for President Obama's retaliation initiative caused this unexpected reaction from Russia's leader.

Undoubtedly, Putin writes with smooth apologetics about the Syrian crisis:  

"Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again."

But, this cunning is "touché", when he writes:

"It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan 'you’re either with us or against us'.”

Well, President Putin has no business speaking about American interventions, when Russia has basically annexed Syria for their own greedy ambitions to control energy from Syria's natural gas pipeline.

Most disturbing is the lack of compassion President Putin provides for the dead Syrians who were killed by Sarin poison gas. This omission undermines President Putin's premise in the op-ed column. If, as Putin says, it's extremely dangerous to see Americans as "exceptional", then he should lead by giving up his "mirror, mirror on the wall" egotism and do something, quickly, to remove chemical weapons from Syria.  

Meanwhile, Putin used America's freedom of speech and the press to give President Obama a chance to regroup on the Syrian crises. Putin's puff piece was surely good for The New York Times, but he needs to demonstrate how "God's children" need compassion.

Syria and Sarin

President Obama needs the persuasive ability of Winston Churchill to convince Americans about the need for moral leadership against the use of Sarin poison gas in Syria.  Perhaps General Petraeus and his strategic military leadership will help.

Americans are politically divided about a lot of issues that don't rise to the threshold of life versus death. Issues like immigration reform, Obamacare, Medicaid and tax equity would disappear like sea smoke on a sunny day if US citizens were threatened with death by Sarin, a weapon of mass destruction poison gas. 

Even the National Rifle Association would oppose the use of Sarin poison gas against innocent civilians!

Syrian citizens who were victims of Sarin didn't have a choice on August 21, 2013, when the government of President Bashar al Assad murdered over a thousand of Syrian citizens with the poison gas.  Assad's leadership has been threatened in a protracted civil war.  Assad obviously doesn't "get" that his leadership might as well have been "gassed", along with the innocents he murdered, because no dictator can survive the genocide of his own citizens.  It's just a matter of time before Assad is taken out as President of Syria, either by assassination or jailed as an international criminal.

Meanwhile, the dead innocent people who were caught in this genocide are the evidence of this violation of the Geneva Protocol, "The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare".

Although Americans saw some video images of the massive civilian Sarin victims, the US Congress was shown more graphic images of the tortuous deaths suffered by the victims.

CNN reports images of men sprawled on a tile floor, shirtless and convulsing. Children, too, seemingly unable to control their shaking and flailing. Panic and screams in the background.

These are some of the hard-to-stomach images that the Obama administration has shown a select group of senators in closed-door briefings to make the case that a limited military attack on Syria is justified.

CNN obtained 13 different videos seen by members of the Senate Intelligence Committee that depict the gruesome scene of an chemical weapons attack in Syria on August 21. The administration told senators that their authenticity was verified by the intelligence community.

The attack, allegedly carried out by Syrian forces under President Bashar al-Assad, touched off a critical foreign policy question: Is a military response merited?

The videos capture a moment of panic, as those who are standing try to feed water to those who appear incapacitated. Prayers are repeated.

Meanwhile, retired four star General David Petraeus has gone public to help explain the risks of not responding to the Syrian genocide.

General Petraeus is a highly skilled military professional.  

Petraeus backs Obama administration on Syria

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Retired Army Gen. David Petraeus announced Saturday he's behind the White House's plan for limited military strikes against the Syrian government.

In a statement, President Barack Obama's former CIA director called for Congress to support the administration's call for airstrikes against President Bashar al-Assad's forces, warning that rejecting the president's request would embolden "Iran, North Korea, and other would be aggressors."

"Failure of Congress to approve the president’s request would have serious ramifications not just in the Mideast but around the world," Petraeus said.

Petraeus also said that the planned aerial assault "is necessary" to both enforce the international laws forbidding the use of chemical weapons and to degrade Assad's overall military capabilities.

Petraeus’ statement was endorsed by Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), who described the retired general as “the most respected military leader of our time.”

In addition to the persuasive skills of the knowledgeable General Petraeus, the list of knowledgeable people who support taking action against the murderer Assad includes Secretary of State John Kerry, the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain and the President of France Francois Hollande.  

Obviously, this short list of impressive leaders will need to engage in a non-stop communications campaign to educate the understandably reluctant American public about the urgency of responding to Assad's Sarin attack.  

Unfortunately, politically divided Americans are asked to unite about a crises happening half way around the world. Moreover, the crises in happening in Syria, a Middle Eastern nation where the people are nearly as culturally different from Americans as Aboriginal Australians are from Alaskan Eskimos. 

But, regardless of how politically divided we are, Americans must care about our fellow human beings who are victims of genocide.

Syrians murdered with Sarin will not be an isolated incident if Assad gets away with genocide.  Although Assad's days are numbered, his evil act opened the door to other evil dictators to potentially use the same tactics to subdue rebellions.  Syrians attacked by Sarin eventually deserve the satisfaction of justice.  More important, responding to the Syrian Sarin attack will be a badly needed warning to future perpetrators of genocide because, tragically, there always seems to be another one lurking in the wings of tyrannical power.  

Syria - Past the Point of No Return

With over 100,000 Syrians killed, resulting in at least a million refugees, the world is facing a genocide from which humanity will be unable to explain or recover. Clearly, Syria is past the point of no return - they can't undo genocide. If Al Assad's forces continue to eliminate more people through mass killings and Sarin gas attacks, his own forces will eventually turn the same weapons on others who oppose the oppressive government regime.

Yes, Senator John McCain tragically warned us about this imminent danger; and now his worst predictions have come to pass. Hundreds of dead women, children and civilians are evidence of the evil McCain warned us as imminent, if Assad continued his rampage in the Syrian civil war.  

(By the way, where's Pro-Life Queen Sarah Palin in defense of her former 2008 running mate?  There really are dead civilians to mourn in Syria; these people are not sadly hypothetical abortion victims.)

As you know, Senator McCain, it's often not easy to be right. 

Consequently, Americans like me owe Senator McCain an apology, for not paying close enough attention to the evil Syrian President Al Assad.  Clearly, the world needs to rise up against a man who  has committed crimes against humanity. In fact, Al Assad raised the bar above genocide; he did the unthinkable. Al Assad violated the Geneva Protocol by killing Syrian civilians with Sarin gas.

There was only one reason Al Assad used Sarin gas on innocent civilians -  one reason and only one:  he wanted to force President Barack Obama to retaliate and was, therefore, willing to sacrifice his own reputation in history to stand up to the US.  In so doing, Al Assad demonstrated an unrelenting ego without purpose or moral conviction.  Genocide will not resolve the Syrian Civil War.  Instead, this mass murder will bring an end to the Assad regime, but not soon enough to prevent a challenge to American world leadership.

Unfortunately, Americans have been led down the war path too many times since the end of World War II to believe another intervention will make any difference in the world.

Americans are, understandably, skeptical and war weary. 

Our nation has become something like the proverbial folk tale, about the boy who screamed wolf, just to get attention, until a real villain showed up; but, by then, nobody paid the boy any attention.  Al Assad has shown himself to be an evil personification of a wolf.  Nevertheless, Americans have been called to action too often- twice in Iraq and still in Afghanistan - to find out that the enemy leading Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, was really living in Pakistan.  

War weary or not, Americans must challenge a dictator who puts his own citizens to death for no reason except to, apparently, avenge a perceived threat against his leadership.  

How will Americans respond if Assad eventually uses Sarin gas on other populations, including the American military? This eventuality is, absolutely, bound to happen, unless Assad's capability to deliver deadly weapons of mass destruction, including Sarin gas, are completely destroyed.

Regardless of how ambiguous Americans public feels about retaliating on behalf of those dead Syrian civilians, the fact is, Assad crossed a red humanitarian line by killing his own people. 

In the annals of world history, Assad entered into a small circle of dictators like Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein, who also passed the point of no return by committing genocide.  

Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. As a result, his demonic leadership reputation has passed the point of no return and he will never recover from this crime against humanity.  

On behalf of the hundreds of dead Syrian children killed by Sarin gas, I want to see President Assad tried and convicted of genocide.

When Public Opinion Doesn't Matter

Over a thousand civilians were murdered by Assad, with Sarin, a weapon of mass destruction. Their bodies were displayed in rows, without shrouds, for television cameras to broadcast, so all the world could see.  

Unfortunately, Americans living outside of Syria seem to have minds set against retaliating against the use of Sarin poison gas by Syrian President Al Assad, to kill civilians. Public opinion is, unfortunately, trending against Americans helping the victims of this genocide.  

War protesters with red painted hands showed up at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee while Secretary of State Kerry explained the horror of Al Assad's genocide.

Public opinion is a measure of one point in time and it can be swayed, but defending innocents against genocide doesn't appear to be persuasive enough.  Public opinion doesn't measure how Americans would respond if our nations security were threatened with Sarin.

If Al Assad gets away with killing innocent civilians with Sarin, it's just a matter of time when this weapon of mass destruction will be used against Americans.  

Obviously, Americans are averse to another war for any reason outside of a threat to our national security.  Public opinion is certainly trending against Americans defending the murder of lines of dead innocents.  

War protesters don't get this.  

Nevertheless, they are experts at getting attention. They vigorously scream protests, paint graffiti peace signs and create bizarre costumes to demonstrate their opposition to war. We get their message, but in spite of their rigorous attention grabbing tactics, most protesters are not war victims.

A group of ostentatious protesters showed up to a Senate Hearing in Washington DC with their hands painted red. They kept red painted hands held high so the television cameras in the hearing room could see them, while Secretary of Defense John Kerry defended a proposal for a US military response to the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons against civilians, include hundreds of children, while he was speaking to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Their salient made for TV hand message was "The US will have blood on its hands if there's a military response to Syrian genocide". 

These red handed protesters certainly weren't contesting the deaths of thousands of innocent people gassed by their own government. Instead, they protested America becoming engaged in yet another war. Their irritating red hands didn't change anybody's mind, but they were impossible to ignore. In my opinion, freedom of speech means everyone has a right to it; therefore, the red hand exhibition was the equivalent of a rude interruption to Secretary Kerry, acts which interfered with serious lawmakers who tried to focus on the purpose of the important deliberations.

Obviously, Syrians are desperate for help to overthrow the Al Assad regime.  Yet, it's impossible to know if American involvement will bring about a regime change.  

Life in Syria could even get worse, rather than improve, as a result of introducing more international carnage into the civil war.

Meanwhile, millions of Syrian refugees are pouring out of the country, causing another humanitarian disaster in Turkey.  

But, even genocide doesn't appear to be enough to move American public opinion.  

There are times when public opinion just doesn't matter. Lawmakers will vote on a proposal about retaliating against Al Assad based upon an international agreement against the use of poison gas, updated to include bacteriological agents, signed in 1925.

It's a shame to see Americans trending against a military response to the Syrian genocide, especially when we can't unite in favor of eliminating our national poverty or for providing access to basic medical care for all human beings.

Al Assad's heinous action against civilians will open the door to more violations of international law and, eventually, Americans will be the victims.

There are times when public opinion can't matter. 

Leaders and lawmakers must do what's right; we must consider retribution against genocide, precisely because public opinion is a moving target and will sway overnight if Americans should become victims of Sarin.

Humanity's Red Line in the Sand

House Speaker John Boehner asserted that Syria had crossed the “red line” staked out by Obama last year – the use of chemical weapons on its own people.

This Red Line Was Drawn by Humanity in 1925:

The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, usually called the Geneva Protocol, is a treaty prohibiting the first use of chemical and biological weapons. It was signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925 and entered into force on 8 February 1928.  This protocol is humanity's line in the sand for evil doers, military leaders and dictators who would use chemical warfare for the purpose of inflicting genocide as a means of terrorizing people into intimidation and submission.

President Obama launched the threat of drawing a red line in the sand as a threat against Syrian use of poison gas to subdue civilians who are sympathetic with the country's rebels currently engaged in a civil war against the government.  This line has been crossed.
Over a thousand of innocent people were gassed by Al Assad in his relentless attack on Syrian rebels.  Al Assad didn't kill militants with Sarin gas.  In fact, he murdered children.

Now, of course, the media and Congress are asking what kind of retribution the "red line" requires to enforce the threat?

Although the international buzz is all about the "red line", the reality of the situation is the line of innocent bodies lined up on floors in makeshift morgues.  These lines of small bodies are now  a bloody trough. Something must be done to punish President Al Assad for committing this extraordinary act of genocide against his own people - or any other people.  

Al Assad's assault on civilians including children didn't only defy President Obama;  his evil arrogance has put him on a short list of evil people who have been doomed as a result of using similarly terror tactics.  This short list includes Al Assad with Adolf Hitler and the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.  

As for American national security, there's no question about the impact of letting an arrogant dictator have his way with crossing the "red line"of genocide, by any means.  Recall Pol Pot (mass assassination), Adolf Hitler (Holocaust), Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong, to name a few.

Allowing Al Assad to violate the Geneva Accord and assaulting civilians also puts all military at risk during any conflicts.  

Obviously, an understandably war weary American public are horrified by the prospect of another Middle East military engagement.  But, if Al Assad gets away with genocide, because he violated the Geneva Accord, the consequences will horrify Americans even more than targeted actions needed to punish his evil deed.

Humanity drew a red line against the use of chemical weapons in 1925, and the enforcement of the Geneva Protocol must hold Al Assad accountable for his evil arrogance.

Declaring a War on Terror

American military strategies have tried, really tried, to focus the war on terror against the Al Qaeda extremists in their hide outs among tribes in developing nations, like Afghanistan and Pakistan. Yet, in spite of billions of dollars spent on this effort, while countless lives have been lost, our nation's overall efforts to protect our national security against future attacks has not advanced much. We've protected our nation against some follow up attacks, we don't know how many were foiled, but our national security still remains fragile.

In other words, we obviously have not yet won the war on terror.  

Maybe, this failure to win is because a War on Terror has never been declared. Now, the world is faced with yet another conflict in Syria that, if left unresolved, will create, either, a change of regime that could be worse than the reign of terror now being waged by President Al Assad, or a humanitarian disaster of unparalleled proportions.  

Maybe, both events will, unbelievably, happen concurrently.  In which case, our world wide undeclared war on terror will continue to be fed by the carcasses of the collapse of Syria.  

At least, that's how I see it.

Americans witnessed the horror of the September 11, 2001, attacks on our country, but a formal war was never declared.

In spite of the three terrorists attacks, led by their ring leader, the Egyptian born Mohamed Atta, on the Twin Towers at New York City's World Trade Center, coupled with the deliberate crash of United Airlines Flight 93 in Pennsylvania, and the crash of American Airlines Flight 77 on the Pentagon in Washington, DC, most Americans have yet to experience the sacrifice of living in a nation at war. 

Indeed, these brazen and evil attacks on our country caused a retribution against the terrorist networks led by Al Qaeda, leading, eventually, to the bold killing of Osama Bin Laden in Abbottobad, Pakistan. Nevertheless, there's no declared war to end the zealous networks of extremists feeding off of the unjustifiable passion for killing innocent people, especially Americans.  

Now, Americans are on the threshold of yet another Middle East conflict, this time in Syria.  Another dictator, different name, same tyranny, named Bashar Al-Assad.  This is a man whose days are numbered, regardless of how the Syrian carnage called a civil war plays out.  

Syrian President Al Assad can't possibly retain control of his country when many millions of his people are living in refugee camps outside of his nation's borders, while he sprays innocents inside his country with Sarin poison gas.

Al Assad has lost his mind. He never should've sprayed his people with Sarin poison gas, especially hundreds of innocent children.

Obviously, I'm not a foreign policy expert; moreover, I have absolutely no experience in international diplomacy.  But, this is my blog; so it's the world as I see it - "this way", according to me:

• America has never declared a War on Terror. Why?

• Meanwhile, our nation has experienced a litany of terrible attacks on our way of life, both within our own nation and, especially, abroad.  These attacks may  have started in 1993, in the Reagan administration, with the Beirut attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon; maybe, even before then. 
• Now, because we never declared a War on Terror, America and our allies haven't been able to resolve conflicts where our nation's security are at risk.  As time goes on, our nation and allies are perceived as vulnerable, because we can't overcome the forces that want to destroy our way of life.  

Of course, Syrian President Al-Assad isn't currently threatening the US. Instead, he's fighting to retain leadership, all the while, his days are numbered, regardless of the outcome of the civil war he's obviously unable to resolve.  The leader who comes after Al-Assad- and there will be a leader after him - may be even worse, especially if the pro-government forces remove him from power because of ineptness.

If America doesn't do something definitive to help the victims of this Syrian Civil War, our credibility as a world leader will erode even more than it has already.  As a result, terrorism will spread, because it can intimidate our national resolve to fight.

In fact, I wonder if Al-Assad would have dared to use poison gas against his own people, if he perceived the threat from President Obama to "draw a line in the sand" about using weapons of mass destruction, as being serious.

Therefore, in an inverse correlation, if Al Assad prevails and his terror increases, our nation's credibility will be diminished.  As a result, the threat of world wide terrorism will expand even further, because that's how evil works.  Evil is something like carbon monoxide, it will fill the world unless civilized nations open up the environment to the expansion of oxygen.

Al Assad used Sarin gas on civilians and this evil act must be addressed; it's just inconceivable for any human being to do this.  

Al Assad now joins a demonic  historic line up, with the Germans in World War I, Adolf Hitler in World War II and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, a demonic line up.  

Frankly, the civilized world must once and for all declare a War on Terror, define it, fight it and win it.  Similar to how Allies after World War II recreated Western Europe, the world must take the same strategy against Al Qaeda and all terrorism.

By doing nothing to intervene in Syria, the terrorism networks will feed on the inaction to fuel their growing networks of groups that want to destroy civilization as we know it.  

Humanity must win the War on Terror.  There is no alternative.

Asma Al-Assad: Syria's Beautiful First Lady - Her Ties to England

President Al-Assad will forever be known alongside of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein for being the leader of a country where poison gas was deliberately used to kill innocent people.

But, Britain's Parliament voted against retaliation for this violation of international law. Why?
With birth and educational ties to England, the beautiful Mrs. Al-Assad's presence has a salient influence wherever she appears. Would her lovely influence have any impact over the British Parliament?

Asma al-Akhras: Asma al-Assad born 11 August 1975, née Asma al-Akhras, is the British-Syrian First Lady of Syria. Born, raised and educated in the United Kingdom by Syrian-born parents, she graduated from King's College .  She met Bashar al-Assad during the 1990s, when they were both in London.  The couple married after the death of her beau's father, Syrian President Hafez Assad, in June 2000.

They have had at least three children. She was reported last spring to be pregnant with a fourth.  Before the outbreak of the civil war in Syria in March 2011, the first lady had projected an image of a reformer.  Local merchants routinely praised the secular "modern image" of al-Assad and his wife, particularly in contrast to Turkey's pious Sunni prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose wife wears an Islamic headscarf.

A 2011 Vogue magazine article described her as "a rose in the desert."

Does Mrs. Al-Assad's ties to England have any influence over British lawmakers?  

British Prime Minister David Cameron unexpectedly lost the vote in Parliament to launch a retalitatory attack, with the US, against Syria, for the use of Sarin gas on innocent citizens last week.  

LONDON — Invoking the specter of the Iraq war, British lawmakers on Thursday rejected military action in Syria, dealing a stunning blow to Prime Minister David Cameron and effectively ruling Washington’s staunchest military ally out of any U.S.-led strike.

After a marathon eight-hour debate, Cameron lost a vote that was initially seen as a symbolic motion setting up a final vote in the days ahead authorizing force against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime for allegedly using chemical weapons. But the surprise loss of even the weaker piece of legislation — by a vote of 285 to 272, including a group of rebels from Cameron’s Conservative Party in opposition — appeared to cost the United States its centerpiece ally in a still-forming coalition. The rejection additionally signaled what analysts called the biggest rupture in the U.S.-British “special relationship” since the 1982 Falklands war.

This rebuke by Parliament was especially surprising because Engalnd was among the world countries that created the international Geneva Protocol banning the use of poisonous gas.The Geneva Protocol, is a treaty prohibiting the first use of chemical and biological weapons. It was signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925 and entered into force on 8 February 1928. It was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on 7 September 1929.[4] The Geneva Protocol is a protocol to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. It prohibits the use of "asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices" and "bacteriological methods of warfare". This is now understood to be a general prohibition on chemical weapons and biological weapons.

Of course, there's no evidence Mrs. Al-Assad has any influence on Parliament, but one has to wonder.....

The beautiful First Lady of Syria probably has nothing to do with with Prime Minister Cameron's defeat.  But, her connections to England must be widely known among lawmakers in Parliament.

Eventually, President Al-Assad will be held accountable for the atrocities inflicted on innocent civilians during the Syrian civil war.  His beautiful wife and their family will be forever marked by the heinous deaths of over a thousand who died the hideous death inflicted by Sarin gas, added to the thousands who have been killed in the civil war.

If Mrs. Al-Assad has any influence whatsoever in Syria or anywhere else, she will hopefully use it to stop all the killing of her country's people.  Her life in England must have had an influence on her as a human being, a mother and a humanitarian.

Perhaps, her family ties had some underlying influence on a handful of Britian's Parliament, just enough to defeat Prime Minister Cameron.  Likewise, this same kind of influence, if it exists, can stop the Syrian genocide, as well.