No man with such a fundamental misunderstanding of modern American history should be deciding the fate of a new group of civilians.
With polls showing majorities of Americans not in favor of any U.S. military action in Syria and the Tea Party's entire existence being dedicated to being against anything President Obama is for, Republican after Republican has come out to say that they are opposed to a strike on Syria.
By virtue of its power, position, and principles, the United States, albeit reluctantly, must put on the sheriff's badge and play that role. Failure of the U.S. to do so in Syria moves the world closer to anarchy.
What exactly can Syria do in retaliation? Actually, it's not what Assad will do. His military can't even beat the ragtag rebels arrayed against him. Rather, it's what his proxies may do... and that is where we should be focused on.
Those who advocate for yet again violating the norm on aggression should consider the long term ramifications of this for the international legal order.
Following the invasion of Iraq our media has more responsibility than ever to ensure that stories coming out about the Syria crisis are examined forensically and reported accurately and that the media are not used as a tool to bump a reluctant public toward supporting for war.
Obama will address the nation on Tuesday at 9:00 PM in an attempt to provide reassurances that striking Assad will be different, but he faces a skeptical nation that's worried this will be another dumb war.
The president has placed the decision whether to go to war where it belongs, with Congress. Legislators should act on behalf of the American people, not the Obama administration. And the right decision is to keep the U.S. at peace.
I have some great news, folks! You don't have to wait for a congressional vote to do something to help Syrian refugees and displaced families. You can act right now.
If we start bombing Syria, we are potentially committing ourselves to a deeper level of involvement than the administration is now acknowledging.
The ease with which violence in Iraq and Syria has negatively impacted surrounding countries underscores the declining significance of borders throughout the Levant.
Do you expect the next headline concerning sectarian differences in Iraq and/or Syria to read, "Islamic factions decide to reject violence and to support and to love their fellow citizens?" No? I don't see why not.
Military intervention should not be for punishment of Assad for the use of chemical weapons or the atrocities of the past two years. Its main purpose ought not be for sending a message to any other country planning to use weapons of mass destruction.
There has been a lot said in the last week comparing the Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force to punish Bashar al Assad's government for using chemical weapons to the resolution authorizing the Iraq War. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee just voted to approve a resolution to attack Syria on a vote of 10-7. But the breakdown of the voting reveals that this was in no way a party-line vote.
Yesterday in a meeting, a colleague asked about what will be needed after the conflict in Syria, what we could help with. I looked down. I was thinking, there's not much we can do if the infrastructure of the country is wiped out.