Senator John McCain (R–AZ) yesterday called for a U.S. military intervention in Syria that would include air strikes on Syrian government forces to protect the Syrian people. McCain said that “Providing military assistance to the Free Syrian Army and other opposition groups is necessary, but at this late hour, that alone will not be sufficient to stop the slaughter and save innocent lives.”
McCain acknowledged that his proposal is a risky move that could embroil the United States in an open-ended civil war on the side of a disorganized opposition coalition, but he maintained that “There are no ideal options in Syria.”
McCain compared the situation in Syria to Libya, where a NATO-led coalition intervened last year to halt the regime of Muammar Qadhafi from attacking opposition forces. But NATO allies currently are opposed to military involvement in Syria, as is the Obama Administration. Moreover, Russia has pledged to veto any U.N. Security Council resolutions that would authorize a military intervention.
A military intervention would be much riskier and more expensive against Syria’s military forces, which are far larger, better equipped, and more effective than Qadhafi’s ragtag army. General James Mattis, head of the U.S. Central Command, today assessed that it would take a significant U.S. military commitment to overcome the advanced air defense weapons that Russia has supplied to Syria. General Mattis also said that Syria has a “substantial” chemical and biological weapons arsenal and that Iran was likely to use surrogate groups to resist any foreign intervention in Syria.
There are alternatives that could address the humanitarian crisis in Syria and promote the cause of freedom without direct U.S. military intervention. Furthermore, the U.S. must be concerned with the chemical weapons and other potentially hazardous materials in the regime’s possession and make appropriate contingency plans to minimize the likelihood that these materials fall into the hands of terrorists or create a risk to civilian populations, if the regime falls.
See also: Syrian WMD: Counter-proliferation Contingency Planning Needed
I'm really kind of tired of these wars, not wars. If there is going to be any military action, then let congress vote on it in accordance with the War Powers Act.
I see no reason to be going to Syria. That country is repeatedly anti American. We are not going to change that by bombing the current government and the one that replaces it, will not be pro american either.
Syria main export is terrorism.
Lest we forget, two of the 911 hijackers were Syrian.
Certainly it's no surprise they are slaughtering their own civilians: they've done that for decades.
Recently announced, the Red Cross has been given permission to help the effected areas.
Certainly the Arab League, or whatever they called themselves these days, has responsibility within the region. But they, like always will watch, do nothing, and laugh at us all the way to the bank.
Stay OUT of Syria.
Here we go with another foreign intervention proposed by a senator who apparently suffered brain damage after his years of captivity. Why not put our troops on OUR Southern border where we have been and are still being invaded by 'evil doers' who want to destroy us and our way of life.
Bashar Al-Assad's Syria. Not America's. Arabs don't like America putting its nose in their business until it servers their interests in toppling a dictator. Once that is done, Muslim extremist would waste no time in murdering Christians currently under Bashar’s protection. If the Syrian’s want to topple Assad, let them pay dearly with blood for the liberty they seek, it will be the more precious to them.
Ask mccain how he would pay for it. Is he ready to go against grover?