"COMPELLING" WHO SETS THE DEFINITION?

The number of self-proclaimed experts on the topic of actions in Syria is growing at a predictable rate.

What will happen?

How will it happen?

What impact will it have?

What might be the consequences?

Everyone one of these questions has just been beat to death in the past four days.

Let me review a general sample of what the answers have been and you can decide what makes sense and what is nothing more than someone trying to pay their bills by talking on TV.

"It wouldn't stop Assad's ability to continue to utilize WMDs"?

True.

If someone tells your for over a week they are coming to destroy you house, do you not have time to move the items you are most concerned with?

Yep!

Having said this, there is a "upside" to this tactic.

If you don't know where something is located, but you think you can trick your opponent into taking an action to protect the given target, then you might be able to actually target the issue! 

 This is an old trick that has worked time and time again in the past.

" This is not going to result in 'Regime Change'"!

Now, I have to admit, I just love this comment and given how many "experts" have said it in the past few days, well that makes it even more delightful to address.

So, what magic, crystal ball do these "experts" have that makes them stand on this theory, other than their party politics?

How does anyone outside of Assad's inner circle and his Masters know truly gage his level of control?

Let me put it to you this way, when action is taken and the intent of the action is not to create another possibly more adverse action, that doesn't mean it will work!

Remember the golden rule of conflict; the law of unintended consequences.

It's understandable some of the Western powers tried to make it very clear the pending action was not based on Regime Change, but as I said three days ago, that all depends on the perceptions of the other side.

If Tehran and Assad believe Regime Change is the desired result, then what the Western enemies declare prior to the event is irrelevant.

" A simple  limited actions media event will not have any real impact on Syria"!

Back to my comment above; how much risk do you assume when you assume "nothing will happen"?

Remember, whatever action is taken, the other side gets a vote!

All in all, these three core comments seem to be shaping the day to day media, at least until they have an actual event they can cover.

What the past five days have been successful in accomplishing is apx a 250 point drop on the US economic markets... ah yes.. the law of unintended consequences begins even before the first bomb is dropped.

Tomorrow, I will go into my version of what this event might look like at the tactical level and what actions it may lead to.

Let me leave this conversation with one basic principle I shared with a coworker yesterday.

When one side of a conflict makes the statement of "compelling" everyone who might be impacted on both sides and even the neutral parties needs to realize the word, "compelling" is defined by all camps.

If a "limited strike" is needed based upon "Compelling events" then the reaction by the opponent will most likely be "Compelling"!

Oh ya, one last tenant of Warfare to leave you with.

"Hit the Enemy where they are not"!