Sometimes the choice is between better and worse. In Syria the choice is between bad and less bad.
This is why even Jim Wallis could not come up with much. His suggestions about how to proceed are weak. He makes a good case against military intervention, but his positive suggestions rely on moral suasion, international cooperation, and the like. Well and good, but will anything come of it? Not much is my guess.
Go to this address and scroll down to see the article by Jim Wallis:
My problem is trying to avoid despair and to find the least bad option. I do not know what that is yet. Like Wallis, I am wary of military intervention for the reasons he cites. My hunch is that in time the choices may become clearer. Meanwhile, the best we can do is muddle through.
I don't see how a military strike can be avoided at this point. I hope for the best and fear the worst.
PS Good news today (9/9/2013): Russia has urged that Syrian chemical weapons be put under international control and Syria has responded positively. The Washington Post tells the story:
Syria ‘welcomes’ Russia proposal on chemical arms