Syria

[HairOfTheDog]

We stick to a plan of protecting our friends and our interests.

According to many, this action is necessary to protect our friends/interests. If we don't bomb Assad, he'll probably use chemical weapons again, Iran will be emboldened and continue to develop their nuclear weapons program (threatening Israel) and the North Koreans will continue to be assholes and be even meaner to South Korea.

I think it's rather complicated; more complicated than in the past.

Extreme fundamentalist groups like Al Qaeda don't have one home country/base, they're grabbing land where the grabbing is good; taking advantage of countries with leadership and economic weaknesses and exploiting political upheaval in stronger countries (like Egypt and Syria).

It bothers me that the US striking and weakening Syria's government and military could strengthen Al Qaeda's network expansion goals (they're the strongest factions of the rebel forces). Meanwhile, Assad's loyalist army is being strengthened by Hezbollah militants.

These are the "terrorist enemies" against whom we've been waging a war on terror for over a decade.

What's the best likely outcome when the government of a country is threatened, pro and anti-government sides include extremist factions, either side is capable of chemical warfare, and it's highly likely that any of the many vested parties are ready and willing to set the other side up for atrocities (killing civilians in the process) in order to manipulate the media, garner military support from other countries/groups, and further their own agendas?

Is it in the US's interest to get involved when there is no direct immediate threat agains us? Is there ever really no direct threat (looking into the future) to the US and its allies when those with opposing ideologies are pushing to expand their global network by acquiring as much ground as possible to increase their power/influence?

For me, there's a lot more to consider in the West's strategy with Syria than the use of chemical weapons (regardless of how sad and tragic that may be). I'm not confident that there's solid evidence pointing to one or the other sides as the "good guys", nor that there's a clear understanding as to whom would truly benefit (short and long term) from any level of intervention, like the US striking and supporting the rebel forces. JMO.

For now, I wish we'd stay on the sidelines and pinpoint a strategy - working with our allies and other UN member countries collaboratively.