While the world awaits a potential Western military strike on Syria, the following question is haunting the Lebanese and other people of the Arab Levant in their sleep: How will a strike, if it were to occur, affect their future and that of their children?

The answer of course depends on the strike’s targets, scope and success. Here success is not only measured by how well military objectives are reached while causing the least amount of damage, but by how well the strike aids in reaching a lasting compromise and stability. It is known that the main motive or rationale for the strike is to punish the Bashar al-Assad regime for using chemical weapons and to prevent future breaches of the standing international covenant against their use that has been in place for decades.

Regardless of the motives, declared or undeclared, the strike will have repercussions on the ground. Its success and legitimacy, the world’s acceptance of it, will thus depend on its aftermath. In turn, the latter will be solely governed — and herein lies the bottom line — on the presence of a vision or a plan to deal with "the day after," the period that would follow any strike. Such a plan should lead to added stability, not further chaos and fighting, as was the case in Iraq in the period immediately following the invasion of 2003.

The absence of such a plan has been the main reason behind the international community’s hesitation and division, even within the same camp, toward the military option. This was unequivocally evidenced by the UK House of Commons’ vote against the decision of Prime Minister David Cameron’s cabinet and by US President Barack Obama’s decision to refrain from exercising his constitutional powers and instead seek Congress’ approval prior to any military action targeting the Syrian regime.