In today's Washington Post, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) makes the best and most comprehensive case I've seen against intervention in Syria:
Syria is in the midst of a sectarian civil war, born of centuries-old animosities. We have no clear ally in this Sunni-Shiite conflict, and any “limited” and “proportional” strike could quickly get out of control, imperiling our allies and forcing us into the civil war.
The president and his secretary of state have repeatedly said that Assad’s use of chemical weapons violates an “international norm.” They insist it is critical that we send a “message” to Assad that his behavior is unacceptable. But it is not the job of U.S. troops to police international norms or to send messages. Our men and women in uniform have signed up to defend America.
It's a great read, though Cruz's persuasion may no longer be necessary. The House of Representatives is breaking against the war and the president may find a safe way out with Russia's plan to have Syria surrender its chemical weapons. But politically, this is the sort of unlikely alignment that gives heartburn to hacks and causes pandemonium among partisans: A Democratic president pushing for a war of choice opposed by his most conservative critics in the Senate. What to do if you're a mouth-breathing liberal who voted for the president in 2008 in part to repudiate the war in Iraq? The answer: Retreat back into your warm cocoon of Obama love and learn to love the bomb. The good people at The Second City Network have more: