The British Parliament voted against Prime Minister Cameron’s request to join the U.S. in a military strike against Syria. Was that a wise action?
Surely in the U.S. today, Americans have mixed emotions about taking military action unilaterally, and many are reluctant even with a full force coalition. With the British balking, that may give reason to pause.
The Syrian government is arguing that their opposition are truly al Qaeda under different labels, but the same brand of Islamic radicalism. Their approach is to eradicate radical extremists who they treat as terrorists and insurrectionists. Do Assad backers have a point?
Well, yes they do, however, does any government has the right to use chemical weapons against fellow human beings? The answer is a resounding no because that is inhumane.
That is where the U.S. steps forward with intent to inflict punishment.
What right does the U.S. have to respond on behalf of humanity to a government that would violate international laws against the use of weapons of mass destruction? Some Americans believe that we are bound by our duty to humanity to act in such circumstances. How is that codified in law and policy?
As it stands, about half of the American public support a robo-attack.
The BBC speculates what U.S. actions might be.
“How a US strike on Syria might look
By Tara McKelvey
BBC News Magazine
If the US attacks, US policymakers have no idea whether Assad will step up the rhetoric and the violence
Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel says the US is "prepared" for military action
"It would be a fairly short, sharp action - much like Operation Desert Fox," a 1998 military operation in Iraq, says Peter Mansoor, an Ohio State University professor of military history who served as executive officer for David Petraeus, a retired US Army general, in Iraq.
Mr Obama has been looking for a way to retaliate against the Assad regime for the chemical weapons. If he proceeds with a missile strike, he will follow a long line of US presidents who have tried to avoid bloody ground battles.
The missiles would likely be deployed from the sea, without putting Americans in danger.”