- Were Syrian hackers responsible for the NY Times' outage?
- The Wall St Journal has lots of insidery details about the quickly evolving US position on Syria. (Thanks Michael.)
- Why must America's urge to 'do something' in Syria be a military impulse? Wouldn't it be better to boost humanitarian aid?
- The norm against chemical weapons use is not worth defending, says Stephen Walt.
- WeChat set to become China's first company in the world's top 100 brands. (Thanks Dirk.)
- Electronic vote-counting machines are, somewhat surprisingly, a growth industry in China. (Thanks Dirk.)
- George Packer debates himself on Syria intervention.
- Michael Collins Dunn at the Middle East Institute blog:
Using bombing to "send a message" rather than achieve a specific and realistically achievable military purpose is not a new idea. It was tried in Vietnam. The Onion, as often happens, gets to the point: "Experts Point To Long, Glorious History Of Successful U.S. Bombing Campaigns." The late Robert McNamara was a pioneer of the idea of bombing as message-sending, and eventually realized his error. The other side had a clear objective, and took Saigon.
A case can be made, I think, for staying out of the Syrian affair altogether, and a case can be made for going in and changing the situation on the ground. But a middle ground that accomplishes little but to make us feel better? The worst of all possible worlds.