While the Obama administration has been considering an armed intervention in Syria following the gassing deaths of hundreds of Syrian civilians, a vocal movement in Congress and among the general public has emerged in opposition of any U.S. military role. Here are the arguments for and against American involvement in the war-torn Middle Eastern nation:
It’s the right thing to do, maybe
Let American people finally sleep at night after years of being tormented by thoughts of innocent Syrians dying
Will put thousands of honest, diligent American Tomahawk cruise missiles back to work
We’re the good guys
Syrian people deserve to be free of a psychotic, oppressive dictator for a few weeks
Moral obligation to our defense industry
Footage of missiles being launched off decks of ships, green night-vision images, aerial shots of explosions—all that good stuff
Have plenty of money, a fresh, rested military—why not?
Be nice to throw Kathryn Bigelow a bone
Chance for Obama to put an exclamation point on an already great year
It’s been a while since we did one of these things
Someone might be hurt, or even die
Could turn Russia and Iran against U.S.
Fear of setting a precedent of military action without U.N. approval
Slight, almost infinitesimal chance intervention might be a completely ineffectual act that even further destabilizes the region, touching off massive anti-American sentiment while allowing jihadist radicals to take power
Painful memories of intervening in Rwandan genocide
Bashar al-Assad just had a baby. A baby!
Bush invaded a foreign country. If Obama invades a foreign country, he will be like Bush. It is not good to be like Bush.
If we ever want to patch things up with Assad, this won’t exactly make that conversation a cake walk