I like this comment from a Keller reader in Maine:
This is not about a conflict between Obama (US) and Putin (Russia).
It's about trying to get rid of chemical weapons in Syria or disarm then or something. If that can be done without further bloodshed that's a win-win.
Yes, the Syrian conflict will continue, but we've decided that it's too complicated and too opaque for us, or anyone, to intervene.
Come on Keller. The Cold War is over! If Putin (Russia) can accomplish what Obama said he wanted that's great.
Then there's a William Verek from California:
Dang. We were all led to believe that the need for a strike on Syria was to make it unlikely to use chemical weapons again because they are, you know, different in kind from conventional weapons like land mines, cluster munitions and white phosphorous (all of which are used by the U.S. and the ally it is most faithful to, Israel).
So now we may have accomplished what Obama said we were trying to accomplish and may have done so without blood being shed by the U.S. Why do you sound disappointed?
How could accomplishing our stated goals without war be a defeat? Either the stated motives weren't the real motives or some people just want war.
Given all the hoopla about chemical weapons as the reason the U.S. had to attack, and the discounting of other motivations, such as to bring a quick end to what could be a horrific unending civil war that may put Al Qaeda in the drivers seat of a country with unlimited advanced shoulder-launched surface to air missiles, If Assad follows through in getting rid of his chemical weapons, it will be immeasurably more difficult to drum up a new excuse for intervening on the Israeli- and Saudi-supported side in the Syrian civil war.
Which could prove yet another painful lesson on the drawbacks of trying to lie the country into (yet another) war.