Should the U.S. intervene in Syria? | The Tylt

Should the U.S. intervene in Syria?

After a devastating chemical weapons attack in Syria that killed more than 100 civilians, including many children, Sen. John McCain blamed the White House for emboldening the Assad regime. McCain says the U.S. must intervene by arming the Free Syrian Army, removing Assad, and punishing Russia for its role in backing Assad. But others take the Obama administration's stance, saying we can't aid the anti-Assad rebels militarily without an enormous commitment of ground troops. Are we willing to go there?

FINAL RESULTS
Politics
Should the U.S. intervene in Syria?
#InterveneInSyria
A festive crown for the winner
#StayOutOfSyria
Dataviz
Real-time Voting
Should the U.S. intervene in Syria?
#InterveneInSyria
#StayOutOfSyria
#InterveneInSyria

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.
imageSupportingMedia
#StayOutOfSyria

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.
imageSupportingMedia
#InterveneInSyria

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?

#InterveneInSyria

Are we really going to stand back and allow Assad to gas innocent children?

#StayOutOfSyria

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.

#StayOutOfSyria

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.

FINAL RESULTS
Politics
Should the U.S. intervene in Syria?
#InterveneInSyria
A festive crown for the winner
#StayOutOfSyria