As the crisis in Syria escalates even further, tensions over the world's reaction to the chemical attacks are coming to a boil. After much debate, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to grant President Obama the authority to launch a military intervention in Syria. The decision came after Obama gave an impassioned speech urging the senate to approve the measure. "If the international community fails to maintain certain norms, standards, laws, governing how countries interact and how people are treated...over time this world becomes less safe," Obama told reporters from Sweden. "It becomes more dangerous not only for those people who are subjected to these horrible crimes, but to all of humanity."
The idea of an American military attack on yet another country sounds overwhelming at first, but it is important to note that the Foreign Relations Committee afforded the President limited authority. Whatever measures the U.S. decides to undertake, the goal (as of now) will be to degrade Assad's capabilities and deter him from launching a similar chemical attack on the Syrian people — not to launch an all-out ouster of Assad. According to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, the intervention will seek to protect the interests of Syrian citizens and our national security.
While we completely understand the brevity of the chemical attacks and the need for protection for the victims, we have to admit that we're conflicted about this latest development. For most Americans, the idea of launching another military attack is unsettling — but, in this situation, there is almost no right answer. Tell us below what part, if any, you think the U.S. should play. (Washington Post)