To attack or not to attack that seems to be the question… It’s a big commitment that could entangle the US for many years as we know from recent events.
I guess my biggest question is what is our strategy in Syria? I know the President came out and said they were going to deter defeat & degrade their chemical weapons ability but how do limited military airstrikes on unrelated fields degrade chemical weapons ability?
Why do we have the sudden urgency to attack from the use of chemical weapons? Assad has killed over hundred thousand Syrians the past two years and we have done nothing and now the US must attack immediately?
In addition with this debate dragging out over several weeks doesn’t the Assad regime have plenty time to hide their chemical weapons and military capabilities. Will we be destroying empty buildings? How will this help in a civil war?
Additionally, like Lebanon or Iraq, this is a sectarian battle that doesn’t need the confusion of American involvement. This can easily drag us into another conflict and we become the scapegoat if it fails. We need a UN or at a minimum NATO backing to make this legitimate.
Equally concerning is the lack of a military coalition of the willing. Now that there’s no coalition of foreign governments it seems like the President has gone back to Congress to get backing and/or shared responsibility. He may reach the same fait as our British allies with Parliament.
If the use of chemical weapons is such a moral outrage, where are the other countries with their military men at risk like ours will be? Who will have to protect US citizens overseas if there is retribution? Why does the US taxpayer foot the bill?
Many thoughts for our Congress to ponder..