A blog by the magazine's editors and contributors   Split on
Syria  Now up on our homepage are two new pieces about Syria: a
Commonweal editorial and a dissent to the editorial by
Commonweal's editor, Paul Baumann. As Paul notes in his dissent,
there is consensus among the editors about several important
things but not about the central question: Is U.S. military
action against the Assad regime a good idea? "The Editors"—or a
majority of them—think it isn't:  [E]ven if a U.S. strike does
succeed in getting Assad to stop using chemical weapons, he will
likely continue killing indiscriminately with conventional
weapons. And what will we do then—allow him to go ahead as long
as he keeps the nerve gas locked up? What kind of message would
that send? And what will happen to Assad’s chemical-weapons
stockpile if our military action leads to victory for the
rebels, as it may? After all, we can’t hurt Assad without
helping his enemies, and some of his enemies are ours too.  In
short, good intentions are necessary but