Will this horrifying slaughter continue unless we intervene? John McCain thinks it is the moral duty of the United States to do so; the Washington Examiner reported the hawkish Senator called the attack "another disgraceful chapter in American history."
The attack comes days after the Trump administration went public with its policy that it would allow Syrian President Bashar Assad to stay in office in order to find an end to the conflict. McCain said those comments empowered the Syrians and their allies, Iran and Russia, to possibly drop chemical weapons on their people.
In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Why the U.S. Military Can’t Fix Syria," the writers argue although Syria is indeed a terrible humanitarian crisis, our interventions in Libya and Iraq prove U.S. military action cannot solve the problem, and could actually make it worse.
Direct military action against the Syrian government would ignore the primary lesson of Libya: that regime change, absent the willingness and capacity to engage in subsequent stabilization operations, opens the door to extremist groups. An American commitment to such operations in Syria would also ignore the primary lesson of Iraq: that true stabilization requires both counterinsurgency and state-building, for which the United States, like most mature democracies, lacks the stomach for brutality and political stamina.
100 people are dead as a result of a chemical attack, and scores more injured. Bombers targeted a hospital and two emergency response centers that were treating victims of the initial strike. Many say this sickening slaughter cannot be allowed to continue, and if we don't intervene, who will?
I am angry at us as a world community of humans that we can't unite behind the basic premise that genocide is something we shld stop. #Syria
Others say we can provide humanitarian assistance, accept refugees, provide political pressure— but military intervention will just lead to more death and suffering. No one wants to commit more ground troops to the Middle East.
Obama was right not to intervene in Syria. We can't solve the all the world's problems. We can however, accept all the world's refugees.
It's nearly impossible to take decisive action because of the foreign powers currently involved in Syria. Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are backing major groups in the conflict. The U.S. cannot take action against the Syrian government, which is responsible for much of the violence, without seriously pissing off Russia and Iran.
No one wants innocent people to suffer, but no one wants World War III either.
Nuclear weapons don't keep the peace. We can't intervene in #Syria BECAUSE we, like Russia, have nukes & it could escalate. #Labour#C4News