After all the big talk about a red line for Syria concerning chemical weapons--talk which came from Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama--it appears the U.S. response to Basher al-Assad's use of chemical weapons is inaction.
More than that, it's an announcement of inaction.
Sec. of Defense Leon Panetta made this clear on Thursday, when he not only alluded to the fact that we're doing nothing now, but also that we won't be sending in troops to secure leftover chemical weapons should Assad's regime fall.
Said Panetta: "We are not working on options that involve boots on the ground." And while he left the door open for us to get involved in a humanitarian effort, he made in clear that in "a hostile situation" we will not be involved.
With all due respect to Panetta, Obama, and Clinton: The Al Qaeda insurgents in the al-Nursa Front will send in forces to get those weapons if we don't. Isn't there something we should do?
Shouldn't we at least act like we are going to send someone?