On August 24, conservative (sorta) author and defense-policy wise man Edward Luttwak published an op-ed in the New York Times arguing that the optimal U.S. strategy for the Syrian civil war is to let all the parties to the conflict continue to bleed each other. Noting that virtually every element of each side is an enemy of the United States, he argued, “At this point, a prolonged stalemate is the only outcome that would not be damaging to American interests,” even while admitting that continued fighting is “tragic” (though he insisted that most Syrians stand to lose more than they already have should one side decisively win). He even suggested that the U.S. tinker with the civil war in order to maintain an equilibrium: “Arm the rebels when it seems that Mr. Assad’s forces are ascendant and,” he suggested, “stop supplying the rebels if they actually seem to be winning.”

“It’s an open-and-shut thing,” he told me Tuesday. “I don’t view my op-ed as a brilliant intervention. I think it was stating the obvious.”

To describe his outlook as “realist” is almost an understatement; some would say that to call it “cynical” would be far too kind. Even if it is accurate on its own merits, it might be the sort of “hard truth” that there are good reasons for a country—particularly a country, like the U.S., that prides itself on its sacred honor—to reject.

And yet, Luttwak’s formulation—conceived and written, he told me, before the Assad regime’s August 21 alleged chemical weapons attack on Ghouta—possesses an undeniable logic. What’s more, it appears to be the Obama administration’s strategy—very much including the latest development, which has seen the administration back a Russian-brokered solution that would see all of Syria’s alleged (“alleged”) chemical weapons placed under international control.

In his op-ed, Luttwak acknowledged that the administration saw things similarly, noting, “This strategy actually approximates the Obama administration’s policy”; a full-scale invasion and occupation, he said, are “the only possible alternative.”