Imagine a country about the size of Washington state with three times the population.

Syria’s west borders the Mediterranean instead of the Pacific, north is Turkey instead of British Columbia, east is Iran instead of Idaho, and south is Jordan, Israel and Lebanon.

Syria is nearly 75 percent Arab Sunni Muslims and ruled by Arab Alawite Muslims who make up a mere 12 percent of the population. Bashar al-Assad succeeded his father’s 30-year military dictatorship in 2000. Hafez al-Assad was notorious in his own right.

“Arab Spring” rose up in Syria with peaceful protests in April, 2011. Bashar al-Assad’s repressive dictatorship government responded by killing and torturing protesters and their families as a deterrent to further uprisings.

Soon there was a civil war as rebel groups began to organize and fight back. The army’s forces escalated to bombing entire neighborhoods and towns. On Aug. 21, sarin gas was used on civilians while they slept.

Estimation of damage to Syrian life since the “Arab Spring” of 2011: 100,000 dead, 2 million refugees in neighboring countries, and 5 million internally displaced. The vast majority of this damage was caused by conventional weapons.

Use of chemical weapons broke a big-time rule of war, per the Geneva Protocol, that the rest of the world wants dearly to uphold. The apparent distinction between weaponry is that conventional warfare has and always will occur, usually forces against forces. But chemical warfare is most effectively used for killing civilians.

President Obama felt an obligation to stop, punish, and make an example of Assad for taking this horrific step by using a missile strike at government facilities. However, the American people said no.

Looking at Syria’s position in military options, it appears nothing would work. Removing Assad from power without someone better to replace him has been proven bad tactics (think Iraq). Supplying weapons to rebel forces sounds like a possible humanitarian win, but is it? There are long lists of groups, some as vile as the Syrian government, involved in the rebel opposition.

Enter Russia — Syria’s long-time ally, protector from U.N. Security Council intervention, and supplier of weapons. Back to Geneva and the U.N. and there’s now a U.S.-Russia agreement to destroy all Syrian chemical weapons.

It appears the agreement will avoid immediate U.S. missiles lobbing overhead into Syria. However, Obama may still use military action should Syria fail to live up to the diplomatic deal.

Those who are for U.S. military airstrikes against Syria include Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia — and many Syrian rebels. All fear the Syrian government, for good reason.

Those opposed to American military airstrikes include Russia and Iran. Russia appears to want to prove its dominance in the Middle East. Iran feels threatened by the U.S. and Israel and protects itself by using Syria to ship its weapons through to Lebanon (Shiite Hezbollah) and Gaza (Sunni Hamas).

Americans, it seems, have been overwhelmed by our 12-year war in Afghanistan and nine-year war in Iraq. Costs of these wars have been devastating: nearly 7,000 dead Americans, who knows how many dead Afghans and Iraqis, who knows how many thousands suffer incapacitating injuries and/or post-traumatic stress disorder, and trillions of dollars handed over to the booming war industry.

The U.S.-Russia agreement will probably not reduce Syria’s humanitarian crisis. The conflict is sure to continue.

It’s difficult seeing either side agreeing to peace talks. But it is almost certain that the use of chemical weapons has been stopped in Syria. At least for a while.

— Contact Marylin Olds at marylin.olds@gmail.com.