Your Views: U.S. response to Syria raises lots of questions
Let us hope that the current agreement between Syria, Russia, and the U.S. ends in the stated objective with respect to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapons.
However, if it fails: Prior to this agreement, President Obama could not convince allies geographically closer to Syria to join in an international coalition with respect to the exercise of military consequences for Assad’s actions. If the agreement breaks down, could he convince Congress to support his original plan of action?
And if Congress would not vote support, does that mean Obama would carry out his “surgical” attack through another executive order?
Moving ahead, what will be the consequences here at home if the U.S. continues unilateral military interventions in the Middle East without significant and “equal” coalition with other nations?
Was not Obama’s “red line” announcement, together with an outline of military action, one more example of flawed U.S. foreign policy or, more specifically, no definitive policy at all?
And regarding our foreign policy, to what extent is a Syrian civil war a direct threat to U.S. security here at home to a degree that we must be the sole arbiter of Syria’s conflict? If the agreement fails and military action is to be taken—granting the despicable genocide directed by Assad—should not the U.S. be joined in a sweeping coalition with nations with vested interests in the outcome?
G. FRED GOODSIR