Over the past two years, many thoughtful pieces have advocated for U.S. military intervention in Syria's civil war. A review of such pieces reveals three core justifications: protecting civilians; altering the battlefield to help topple Assad or facilitate a diplomatic solution; and countering Iranian influence in the region. Very few have emphasized the need for the U.S. military to uphold international norms.

Foreign governments began a new round of diplomatic shuffling following President Barack Obama’s announcement on Tuesday night that U.S.-led military strikes against the Assad regime were on hold. During a televised address, the commander in chief said intervention had been temporarily shelved as U.S. officials prepare to enter negotiations regarding the handover of chemical weapons.

September brings a change in seasons and a chance to remember. A dozen years have passed since the day the twin towers fell, but we never look at a bright-blue, clear September sky quite the same way, and certainly each September 11 anniversary gives us pause. With so much global agony, including conflict in Syria and throughout the Middle East, this is a good time to remind ourselves about the value of our diplomacy, particularly public diplomacy, and to remember those working overseas so that we can feel secure at home.

The U.S. got into its confrontation with Syria over an allegedly unscripted statement from President Obama, and may now get out of it thanks to an off-the-cuff remark from Secretary of State John Kerry. Obama set the stage for military intervention in the Syrian civil war last year with two words: "red line." If we see "a whole bunch of [chemical] weapons moving around or being utilized," that would be a "red line" that would "change my calculus," Obama famously said.

President Barack Obama tried Tuesday to sell a military intervention he never wanted to an American public that opposes it, telling the nation that he needed authorization to attack Syria for chemical weapons use as leverage in a newly emerged diplomatic opening from Russia.

Were Marshall McLuhan advising Bashar al-Assad, he would have told him the same thing the Syrian President’s counsellors did: Go on television and take your case directly to the American people. And that’s exactly what the man accused of using chemical weapons on his own people did, courtesy of Charlie Rose, the popular 71-year-old interviewer of the U.S. Public Broadcasting Service.

As President Obama launches a media blitz to build public support for a military strike against the Syrian government, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds Americans moving in the reverse direction, with Republicans leading a growing legion in opposition. More than twice as many Americans oppose launching airstrikes against Syria as support such action, 64 to 30 percent. Overall opposition jumped 5 percentage points from 59 percent in a Post-ABC poll last week, but the largest change in the survey was among Republicans.

On March 24, 1999, former President Bill Clinton explained the rationale for air strikes in Kosovo from the Oval Office: “'Ending this tragedy is a moral imperative,” he said. “Our children need and deserve a peaceful, stable, free Europe.” Within minutes, NATO forces began pounding Serbia with cruise missiles and bombs, the start of what would become the largest military assault on Europe since World War II.