Recently there has been a lot of information coming out about the latest incident of using chemical weapons in the civil war in Syria. This event occurred in Damascus on Aug. 21 of this year and killed over 1,400 people. According to the United Nations and the AP, there is an investigation into 14 other attacks by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that could have involved the use of chemical weapons.

In 2012 President Obama officially set a “red line” that, if crossed by the Syrians, would trigger US involvement in Syria. This “red line” has been crossed several times already, but this time was different because it was the first to be publicized. Right now, the majority public opinion is against military involvement in Syria. A military strike could be a way to obtain the chemical weapons the Assad regime possesses, and has used in the past, and not to remove Assad.

Obama has already made a point of seeking congressional approval for a strike, even though as Commander in Chief he can act without approval. He has already utilized his powers through 163 executive orders to bypass Congress, but in this case he doesn’t want to be the only one blamed for this action.  He needs to stand behind his “red line” announcement.

In an interview with the AP, a senior member of the Syrian National Coalition stated, “They are leaving a murderer and concentrating on the weapons he was using. It is like stabbing somebody with a knife and then they take the knife away and he is free.”

It is true that Assad has killed plenty with conventional weapons, and this plan would leave the gun while taking the knife.

The threat of a strike from the U.S. is not very likely. Comments by Secretary of State John Kerry revealed that any strike from the U.S. would be “unbelievably small” and represent a “limited effort.” What I assume is that a small military attack would be largely for image purposes.

Basically, any military strike from the U.S. would need to be big. The threat of an “unbelievably small” attack with “limited effort” confined to the removal of chemical weapons wasn’t enough to scare him into releasing the weapons; it was Russia that convinced Assad to release the weapons.  The U.S. had no part.

And Assad isn’t stupid. He knows that any large threat could be empty words.

The best strategy for the administration right now is to go along with Russia in this diplomatic process through the UN, because a small strike by the U.S. would not be enough to remove the weapons or Assad.

The U.S. won’t go big, so they might as well stay home.