Syria-intervention skeptic Andrew Sullivan sums up the President's speech: "That was one of the clearest, simplest and most moving presidential speeches to the nation I can imagine."

Tonight Obama made the moral case for punishing Syria for using chemical weapons on innocent civilians, with the best option being that Syria surrenders these murderous weapons to the international community. I agree with what Andrew Sullivan just wrote (my highlights, not his):

That was one of the clearest, simplest and most moving presidential speeches to the nation I can imagine. It explained and it argued, point after point. Everything the president said extemporaneously at the post-G20 presser was touched on, made terser, more elegant and more persuasive. 

The key points: it is an abdication of America’s exceptional role in the world to look away from the horrific use of poison gas to wipe out civilian populations and kill rebels in a civil war. Given that the world would have ignored August 21 or engaged in meaningless blather about it, Obama took the decision to say he would strike. Since such a strike was not in response to an imminent threat to our national security, Obama felt he should go to the Congress, and reverse some of the strong currents toward the imperial presidency that took hold under Dick Cheney. 

As that moment of truth loomed, the Russians gave way on defending or denying Assad’s use and possession of chemical weapons. Putin only did so if it could be seen as his initiative and if he could take the credit for it. Kerry’s gaffe provided the opening. And we now have a diplomatic process that could avert war if it succeeds. And of course, Obama is prepared to give such a proposal a chance. Any president would be deeply foolish not to. There is no urgency as long as Assad has formally agreed to give the weapons up, doesn’t use them again, and the process can be practically managed as well as verified at every stage. 

I’m tired of the eye-rolling and the easy nit-picking of the president’s leadership on this over the last few weeks. The truth is: his threat of war galvanized the world and America, raised the profile of the issue of chemical weapons more powerfully than ever before, ensured that this atrocity would not be easily ignored and fostered a diplomatic initiative to resolve the issue without use of arms. All the objectives he has said he wanted from the get-go are now within reach, and the threat of military force – even if implicit – remains. 

Yes, it’s been messy. A more cautious president would have ducked it. Knowing full well it could scramble his presidency, Obama nonetheless believed that stopping chemical weapons use is worth it – for the long run, and for Americans as well as Syrians. Putin understands this as well. Those chemical weapons, if uncontrolled, could easily slip into the hands of rebels whose second target, after Assad and the Alawites and the Christians, would be Russia. 

This emphatically does not solved the Syria implosion. But Obama has never promised to.

The plan to put Syria's chemical weapons under international control is the result of Obama's threat of a military strike. Dictators back down only when confronted with strength

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I welcome the Russian plan to place Syria's chemical weapons under international control, for the good of mankind.  But Obama must keep threatening the Syrians to deliver on this plan because bad political actors, like Assad, only respect the use of power.

If the world doesn't punish Assad for using chemical weapons, is he or anyone else more likely to use them in the future?

I am no war monger, but I think the answer is clearly yes. This clear international norm has been broken and it is more likely to broken again unless the world strongly says no. As a human rights activists, I support the limited use of airstrikes on the Assad regime and anyone else who uses chemical weapons.

After World War I, the civilized world declared chemical weapons off limits.  189 countries have signed on to the Chemical Weapons Convention.  Syria has refused to do so, making it only one of seven countries that hasn't ratified this important treaty.

I do not want the U.S. to take sides in this civil war.  However, I do agree that President Obama is right to stand up for the principle on the use of chemical weapons.  President Obama:

My goal is to maintain the international norm on banning chemical weapons.  I want that enforcement to be real.  I want it to be serious.  I want people to understand that gassing innocent people, delivering chemical weapons against children is not something we do.  It’s prohibited in active wars between countries.  We certainly don’t do it against kids.  And we’ve got to stand up for that principle.

And I respect people, including close friends, who disagree with me.  Andrew Sullivan has proposed an interesting compromise: have the international community agree that any further use of chemical weapons by any organized group will be met with united action by the world community.  My only concern is that this sounds like the world's empty promises when other atrocities were allowed to take place against the Jews, Cambodians, Rwandans, and Kurds at different times.

This is a vexing question that is worth a healthy debate.