[dmarusic16]

I know it's sort of orthogonal to the point Schneier is making, but to my mind, many of his suppositions relating to Syria are off. I don't think doing preventative strikes even if we knew Assad was about to gas hundreds of civilians were on the table. That logic--prevention--was used in Libya and it has rightly fallen out of favor with the Obama administration, mostly because Libya has proven to be a real shit-show. In any case, attacking before a crime is committed is a dangerous precedent to set on the world stage, a recipe for perpetual war.

The limits of intelligence are real, but the Syria example is not the best one to use to illustrate the point.

[jessaustin]

...mostly because Libya has proven to be a real shit-show.

Did rational people expect otherwise? Fool us once, shame on the military-industrial-media-lobbyist complex. Fool us seventeen times...

[simonh]

Agreed, it's just a recent example but not a particularly good one. One possibility he doesn't consider is that we knew these weapons were likely to be used soon, but didn't have the knowledge or capability to target them effectively. Another issue is that even if you don't reveal sources by making information public you can affect the opposition's behavior. Announcing that Assad was about to use chemical weapons might have prevented him from doing so, or conversely might have persuaded him to use them even more liberally before they get taken out by strikes.