This post will be brief and limited.
In a post entitled, "Loose lips on Syria," the Wall Street Journal Online has announced, in a sort of regretful way, that "U.S. leaks tell Assad he can relax. The bombing will be brief and limited." The subtext is ambiguous, at least to me.
They would like for Assad to "not relax"? Or, they would like for there to be no war, under the circumstances? Or, they are opposed to this prospective war on principle? Or, they want an all out war, and they are afraid that this pre-limited method of entry won't quite do it?
Is the bombing a done-deal? Or is it not? Is this article a last-minute trial balloon to test public reaction? Or is it a justification-in-advance for some future "We-told-you-so," given several possible endings to the "scenario"?
The Wall Street Journal, much like the New York Times, serves as a generations-old media agency for the American-British-Israel Establishment. It is used both to inform and to disinform. I do not know what it is doing at this time (or ever).
I will confine myself to this remark:
The September 11, 2001, attacks upon targets in the United States were also brief, and limited. Point being . . . ?
* * *
I have written more extensively on this subject in my post of April 27, 2013: "Syria, Chemical Weapons, And The West."