So here's where I'm the unpopular dove

[Recursion]

However horrifying it is, whatever you saw:

Will US military action make things better or worse?

If you can't answer that with some certainty, no matter how horrifying what you saw was, that's not an answer.

I was a Marine for 10 years. I did this for a living. I understand. I saw shit I can't erase, and you are too right now.

But if you can't think of an obtainable military objective, anger itself doesn't do anything.

Give us a hill to take, we'll take it. But just say "make things better", well, we're largely as clueless as you on how to do that.

[el_bryanto]

1. This is a well thought out point

I could see and possibly support military actions with specific targets; say to take out his chemical weapons facilities. But an open ended "Fix Syria" mission is ludicrous.

We'll see what Obama does.

Bryant

[calimary]

68. It's a VERY well thought out point!

I worry about the imaging of the U.S. bombing yet another Muslim country. Oh yeah, SUUUUUUUUUUUURE! THAT'LL fix it! THAT'LL make it stop. THAT'LL be a sure-fire deterrent against the use of chemical weapons.

We sure sent that message effectively in Iraq, didn't we? Remember how many times among the many musical-chairs campaign of revolving justifications for going in there - "he gassed his own people!!!!!!" What a message THAT sent. What a meaningful, effective, and long-lasting lesson THAT taught.

And who takes over in Syria if we were to remove Assad through this? Do we even know????? It wouldn't surprise me to see instant sympathizers popping up behind him all over the Arab world with our first bomb strike. Whoever hates him now will embrace him because he'll be a symbol of opposition to the dreaded West. WHAT WILL THIS ACCOMPLISH - SERIOUSLY??? And do you think, realistically, that doing this WILL make it stop? Seriously?

[liberal N proud]

2. I just wonder how killing more Syrians is going to stop them from killing Syrians

The whole thing makes no sense to me.

[RC]

7. Questions like yours need to be ask more often.

We cause that situation in Syria. Instead of helping the people we displaced, by a illegal invasion of an innocent country under false pretenses, what do we do? Why, we want to kill even more people whose only crime was fleeing to somewhere else where we want to lob our missiles.
I wonder how much of our tax dollars are going to both sides of yet another conflict?

[LuvNewcastle]

28. I agree.

I don't see how killing more people is the answer. It does make sense, though, if you want to intensify the war and spread around more weapons. Sadly, that's exactly what some people want to do.

[DissidentVoice]

53. Ike warned us

President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex.

The old general's wisdom has gone unheeded.

[thecrow]

64. MLK told us:

It is hard to face violence and not respond with violence (sic) ...Obama heard these words just two days ago. MLK preached a message of peace and non-violence . I hope he listened to them. All the while I was watching the memorial, I wondered if we were secretly bombing Syria, like when they had the news reporters dinner and we were secretly killing Osama. Kinda ruined it for me.

Do you know we have an Institute for Peace just a short way from the Lincoln Monument ?
I was pleased to see it being built, and hope we can actually use it.

[calimary]

69. Exactly.

[Brigid]

3. You aren't alone.

[joshcryer]

4. Worse.

US action will be a pretext for a crackdown of epic proportions.

Because apparently shelling cities indiscriminately has been OK for 2 years.

[The Straight Story]

5. Will give my objectives as I have elsewhere

Strike Assad's air defenses (and a few planes), radars.

Reasoning:
1. Will not upset the balance of power with the rebels. They don't have planes.
2. Will disable his ability to defend himself against other countries should he continue on with chemical attacks
3. Cost. He will have to replace those items. Work to get other countries not to sell them to him (up to and including a UN resolution)
4. Hit some of those same devices in southern Syria, lord knows they worry about Israel - remove some defenses there and make it hard to replace them and he might get the message.

No attacks on government buildings, attempt to regime change, make it cost him security and cash and weaken (hopefully) the resolve of those in the military who fear the rebels and Israel (because they know if they do it again we remove more of their air defenses). ANd take out some planes for good measure and an ammo dump or two.

[Recursion]

6. We can degrade the Syrian air force

But this won't be like Iraq: they keep much less of their power in the air.

[The Straight Story]

8. If we want to degrade it we can have Miley Cyrus twerk their air force

[Bluenorthwest]

18. And there it sits, your level of thoughtfulness and respect. A thread about horrific things and of

course, you are 'rofl'. Disgusting if you ask me. Out of place, not appropriate. But sadly typical of the 'let's bomb' crowd.

[Javaman]

48. +1 nt

[marew]

59. + 2 n/t

[BainsBane]

9. Look at what some of the US military leadership thinks about that

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-military-officers-have-deep-doubts-about-impact-wisdom-of-a-us-strike-on-syria/2013/08/29/825dd5d4-10ee-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html

[The Straight Story]

12. I had seen that earlier, and the guy on the second page I think said it best

Still, some within the military, while apprehensive, support striking Syria. W. Andrew Terrill, a Middle East expert at the U.S. Army War College, said the limited history of the use of chemical weapons in the region suggests that a muted response from the West can be dangerous.

“There is a feeling as you look back that if you don’t stand up to chemical weapons, they’re going to take it as a green light and use them on a recurring basis,” he said.


-------

Either way you go is bad, the former course in the article of doing nothing sets the US and other countries up to be paper tigers when it comes to stopping chemical weapons use. Not just in Syria. If we won't do something about with them how could we ever have justification anywhere else?

You have to have a line somewhere, and to let a petty little dictator like assad erase that line is not something I am in favor in.

Don't want a war. Don't like it. Don't want my son called back up and shipped off or anyone Else's kids. But if we allow this now then in future actions, or places where our soldiers are now, we give a green light for people to use them. And that is not a good thing.

[BainsBane]

26. I agree there is no good solution

and I too am troubled by the use of chemical weapons. But will military strikes help the situation? That, I'm not convinced of, particularly since US allies and parts of the military leadership have so many reservations.

[kmlisle]

45. This iis not adout a petty dictator

Assad has allies including Russia, China and Iran to name a few. The war in Syria is another proxy war like the others we have fought in the Middle East. When you look at the strategic outcomes of an attack they are even worse than the tactical ones which will not prevent the combatants involved from killing each other and the innocents caught in between. So demonizing Assad, as bad as some of his actions may appear does not justify military action which could destabilize the whole region and cause more attacks over there and here. Plus if World War 3 breaks out I guarantee all our children will be affected in multiple ways starting the the price of oil going through the roof.

As for standing up to chemical weapons you have to understand the US history as our hands are not clean on this issue. For example when Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurdish village he was our ally and our AWACs (airborne radar) assisted him. And are we sure that our own allies today in Syria which apparently include Al Quaeda are not involved or are not producing propaganda to get us into the game? The intelligence on this "points to Assad but is inconclusive". we have far too many examples in our recent history where these kinds of statements proved to be part of the "Fog of War".

I like the idea of using propaganda to fight fire with fire: coming out really strongly against chemical weapons use with UN resolutions and how about shipping gas masks and offering medical help to victims - perhaps again through the UN. The US has neither the moral authority (as a former intelligence officer I know more than I can say) nor should it legally or morally unilaterally try to "fix the world". This is a disease of Empire which we have been suffering from for too long. It is bankrupting our country with 60 cents of every tax dollar going to our war machine and destroying our culture which is more and more based on violence. We are cheating our children and the children of the world of hope for the future. The US needs to back off and learn to work with others.

[7962]

78. 60 cents of every dollar does not go to the defense budget.

Its actually about 20 cents; around 4% of GDP. I'm sure there are some "other" expenditures, but it still doesnt approach .60.
But I agree with most of your other points. We dont win anything in this except to slap russia and iran in the face. Which they need, but some other way.....

[bhikkhu]

13. Doubts are a very good thing

I wish we had the same level of introspection, doubts, and restraint a few years back. It shows a level of maturity, and (being one who likes to hope for the best) I take it as a sign that there is none of the chest-thumping over-confident posturing that so easily turns out stupidly wrong.

[4Q2u2]

34. None of those points to US involvement

1. You do not know if this action will shift the balance of power until it is too late. The rebels may have high ground placement of their artillery (which can deliver chemical weapons) and only Air assets can take them out.
2. A wounded and defenseless foe becomes more unpredictable and reckless. Very dangerous.
3. Our cost will be even greater than his. Our technology is vastly more expensive. Spare money floating around the US?
4. Syria knows they do not have to worry about Israel invading, this would set off all of the other Arab Nations and total all out War.

Even if all of your points were irrefutable where does it say that it is the US's responsibility. France has planes, so to with Sweden, and Canada. Maybe China or Russia. Why not them? How is it our duty?

In a later post you also list a hypothetical as almost fact. It is not. You quote a person at the Army War College say that if we do not do something it could give the green light to future use. Not doing something could also turn the moon into cream cheese. Let's try to base our actions on as many facts as possible and leave the might happens crap out of the equation, too often America has really fucked up bad based on "Might Happens".

[The Straight Story]

35. You may say it is not the responsibility of the US, my take is

It is the responsibility of fellow humans to assist and since the country I live in is the US and the government works for me I do not find it wrong to think that using the powers of our people to dissuade the murder by chemical weapons of other people to be too far out there.

We have the ability to effect change and stop a slaughter. We would no problem doing such if some of our own people were killed as we value our own type more than others.

Should the US govt ever attack it's citizens with chemical weapons while I am here I would have no qualms with someone else stepping in to help stop them, especially if some get their wish and remove the ability of the avg citizen to defend themselves.

I may not have the right answers, or the best ones, but I don't think sitting around doing nothing is going to help at all either. But then, some believe those people belong solely to assad to do with as he pleases.

[4Q2u2]

41. They work for me as well

My main position is that our obligation as citizens is to our Armed Forces, that they be used right and proper. To protect them from misuse. You did not even ponder that in your equation one bit. It is not American lives are more important. It is a question of sending other people's loved ones into harms way for something that is not Fundamentally our Armed Forces dictate. That is how thousands were killed in Iraq. To me it is not a matter of those are Assad's people to do with what he wants. My duty is to the Americans that volunteer to protect and defend the United States, they waive their rights to free speech when they enlist so it is incumbent on us to speak for them loudly. This is not what OUR Armed Forces are for. In the last few decades we have abdicated that duty and have failed our fellow citizens to the tune of tens of thousands.

You say you do not have the right answers or the best one, but you are not even asking the right question. Do you want American Service People to die in Syria for Syria?

I was one of those people that was failed by our citizenry, I served Combat tours in Iraq and my life has be ruined by them. The biggest casualty is my children. You want to bomb Syria go buy a plane.

The first question should always be, "Should we go to War". Too many people ask "Can we win" first. Right then and there you have already closed debate.

[The Straight Story]

42. My son served in Iraq as well

And am not asking for boots on the ground.

I don't want "our" people die anymore than I want children to be gassed there. If I had to put my life in danger to save another I would, even if they were not Americans.

I don't favor war, but limited strikes we, and few others, are able to carry out.

6 million dead already in one country because few have done much to stop it. People being gassed in Syria.

Now ask yourself THIS question about our troops and future engagements: If we just let someone assad use chemical weapons, 14 times at last count, with no repercussions than what is to make anyone think twice about using them on our troops in the future? Before people were scared to use them because we would rain down hell on them. Now our stance is "we will send you a strongly worded letter".

[4Q2u2]

49. Will it stop at Air Strikes?

Who is to say? Boots on the ground will be a lot easier if we are "Already Involved". Spec Ops are already boots on the ground.
Our Stance does not have to change in terms of Chemical Weapons use on our troops. You gas us, since we have no chemical weapons, we will nuke you. That is our protocol now. It is not if you use Chemical Weapons anywhere in the world we will bomb you.

Saddam Hussein gassed his own people and did not use them on us.


Pilots get shot down as well.

I salute your Son and his Service and I am glad he is home. I also hope that he is well.

[rhett o rick]

66. Is chemical weapons your tripping point? Is is ok to stand by and watch a government

hack their people to death with machetes? I believe our interference will make things worse.

[Cheviteau]

73. Ok, I'll reply.

1. I think you mean create a balance of power.

2. There's no definitive proof that Assad ordered this weapons attack. Others have agendas in this complex situation.

3. Russia and Iran always abide by UN resolutions? Uh...no.

4. I will venture to guess that the last thing Assad wants to do is shell Israel with chem. or Bio. weapons. Talk about retaliation !!

I'm neither for nor against a strike. I suggest caution.

[99Forever]

10. Sir...

.. you have made the most salient point, our intervention will only make things worse, not better.

Hey...

... on the positive side, Obama will have "proved" what a badass macho guy he is...

[BlueStreak]

33. In a nutshell, that's what is happening here

And if there is any doubt that this has become all about Obama's ego, let us note that there are people everywhere trying to give him a lifeline, and he refuses to take it.

1) The Brits voted down any military involvement. It would be very ease for Obama to say basically, "Yeah, I was going to kick Assad's ass, but the Brit have asked me to hold off on that for a bit."

2) Congress is petitioning him to put the matter in front of Congress to debate (which is actually what the Constitution says, if anybody cares about that dusty old rag anymore.) This is even better because Obama could say "Hey, I was ready to be the man, but you know that do-nothing, obstructionist Congress. They have my hands tied."

People all over the world are trying to save Obama from his own ego, and he won't have it.

Bad as Bush. Hurts to say that, but it is the truth, at least in this case.

[G_j]

11. K&R

[pinboy3niner]

14. K&R

[steve2470]

15. excellent point, thank you nt

[a la izquierda]

16. You're not alone

I don't support any military action. And I have friends who are from varying places in the Middle East (two of them are Kurds). This is not going to make anything better.

I study the legacy of intervention in Latin America. Not a thing we did down there from a military or police perspective made anything better for 99% of the population.

[n2doc]

17. You aren't unpopular

90+% of americans agree with you. I have been repeatedly told that most of DU agrees with not using military force on Syria.

It seems like it is just a perception, fueled by war trolls and prolific posters on the pro war side.

[zeemike]

21. Well that is how you bum rush the show.

Create the perception that everyone is for it and insisting that anyone who speaks up against it is not supporting the troups...(an unforgivable sin, a perception that has already been created)

[7962]

79. Even Fox News shows the huge majority being against attacking.

[cali]

19. a bracing dose of common sense. thanks.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. Your position is with the majority, the informed majority.

The pro war side does not think it through, had not thought about Syria until a week ago.

[A Little Weird]

22. I absolutely agree with you

We have been fooled before about rushing into war, I don't think the American people are going to be so stupid this time. Finally, after more than a decade of continuous war, we are tired of it.

What is going on over there is horrible, but there are horrible things going on all over the world (one obvious example is DR Congo - over 5 million killed last time I heard) that we don't seem to get too upset about.

We need to wait to hear what the UN inspectors say and then make a decision. I very much hope that decision is to stay out of it.

[littlewolf]

23. with you there, well thought out and presented. Semper Fi sir. nt

[beemer27]

24. Agree

There is no benefit to be gained from striking anything, anywhere, in Syria. We will not change the outcome, help the rebels, protect American interests, or make any friends. NATO wants no part of it, Germany wants no part of it, England voted it down, most of the Arab countries want no part of it, and the only country that agrees with strikes is France. It would be a good time to figure out what these other countries know that we don't.
If it would accidentally make a difference, keep in mind that most of the rebels are affiliated with Al Quida or Hamas. Neither would rule the country in a manner that would help us, or be good for the local peoples.
Let's be smart this time. Stay out of Syria.

[mainer]

25. Much better that we support refugee camps -- THAT saves lives

Food, shelter, medical care along the borders.

No downside to it, no lives lost, no anger against America.

[LuvNewcastle]

31. If we really want to do some good over there, we'll do that.

[klook]

76. YES. (n/t)

[Little Star]

27. k&r

[backscatter712]

29. I'll be unpopular with you.

Because I too am failing to see how a political ass-covering action consisting of using cruise missiles and drones to blow shit up in Syria is actually supposed to stop Assad from using chemical weapons against his own people.

All it'll do is risk escalating the conflict. It'll solve nothing.

[Cryptoad]

30. We dont need to become involved with their civil war

But the World would be a better place without Assad breathing in it.
Fly a drone up his ass when ever he is not hiding behind his human shields.
He has got to pay the ultimate penalty for intentionally gassing children.
Take him out and let them get back to their civil war!

[Shankapotomus]

32. Perhaps we could devote our efforts

to facilitating a path for Syrian non-combatants to simply run away. Just help them to avoid the carnage as best we can without creating more ourselves.

[MNBrewer]

37. And a plan for protecting the Christian/Alawite/Kurdish and other minority populations

in Syria if/when the Assad regime falls. Then after that how to deal with the inevitable Shia vs. Sunni conflict to follow.

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. Agreed...my major objection here is that a policy of intervention doesn't promise any results

that would justify the costs.

The only possible result one can conceive of is a general sense among world actors that chemical weapons use will cause fire to rain down on you. That's actually a useful and moral result in the big picture, but I don't see how we justify an attack on general deterrence.

[Oldenuff]

38. I don't trust my government.I wouldn't put it past those in power

to have had this done by agents of our own intelligence agency,so they simply have to point a finger and use it as an excuse to invade.Sorry,but after all these years and all these wars,the whole thing seems to be pretty transparent to me.Seems to me this is simply the same m.o.,but a different country.

If you haven't considered this...then they have succeeded...wool...over...eyes.

I think that we have simply become the worlds bully.

Flame away.

[lark]

39. Great post!

So happy to see this from a military person. I totally agree with all your points. How does killing Syrian civilians, protect Syrian civilians? How does supporting extremist groups, with Al-Quaeda amongst them, inhibit terrorism? The only thing this would accomplish is growing terrorism and killing more innocents.

P.S. The new words for dove or bleeding heart liberal are peace purist. I rather like that myself as it certainly describes much of how I feel.

[Scalded Nun]

40. Do not worry about being unpopular

That frequently happens to me as well. I am a 20+ years military disabled vet and I, too, see true danger in the attitudes and actions of this country's leadership and the citizens who support it. We have absolutely no ground to stand on when it comes to pointing fingers and spouting moral condemnations AT ANYONE. Just look at what the US has done at home and abroad just the last 11 years. Look at what we are STILL doing.
For me, anytime I hear war-drums I first look at where the sounds are coming from and who stands to profit. Almost always they originate within the MIC. The MIC profits (as it always has) from destruction and conflict. Just look at US aid, especially in regards to the Middle East. Most of the aid is not in dollars, nor is it in economic support. It is in weapons. So, the money actually stays in this country (in the pockets of the MIC) while instruments of war make their way overseas. The added kick in the pants is that many times those weapons wind up being aimed against our own soldiers. This is, of course, no concern to the MIC...just another avenue for profit.
If you cannot show me a plan (a strategy if you will) and rationale for starting and ending a military action along with a concrete risk analysis and cost/benefit breakdown then don't bother looking for my support.
I won't go into all of the reasons for using the $$ here at home. There are too many valid and urgent ones and the readers on this site are already fully aware of them.

[get the red out]

43. Thank you

I have no experience like yours to back it up, but I completely agree with you. Thank you for lending your voice and experience on this.

[peace13]

44. Thank you for this....

And thank you for your service. It is an important prospective.

[Eddie Haskell]

46. You're a patriot.

America is exceptional. It is exceptional because our government was set up to represent the will of all its good citizens. But, we the people cannot become complacent. It is our duty to insure that our government does not misrepresent our will. It is our duty to insure that great power is not exercised for the wrong purpose. It is our duty to insure that our government does not further the agenda of a few, at the expense of the majority. Some might shout, Support our Troops; but I can think of no greater tribute to those heroes that have served, than insuring that their cause remains just, and no greater support to those who are or will serve, than insuring that they will not be placed in harm’s way unnecessarily.

[treestar]

47. That is hard to say

I get the concept "do something" but as to what that is, it is difficult to tell.

I am frustrated by the Russians and Chinese, who are standing in the way of UN doing something - the UN seems the best arbiter.

So far there is no statement of exactly what we would do, and military opinions will differ, too. Whether it is effective is another question.

With modern technology there may be something we can do that we couldn't before. At the time of the Holocaust, we were at war with Germany anyway, and had only the technologies of the time. Here we can know about these things happening outside our involvement in the war that is already going on.

[Ocelot]

51. You're actually in the majority

While the interweb seems to be full of bloodthirsty armchair-warrior personas, I have yet to meet one actual REAL living person who wants the US to take military action against Syria. Look around you and I doubt you'll see many freshly-flagged vehicles like there were during the buildup to the Afghanistan war.

And you're correct, this is an AIMLESS, objective-less and stupidly short-sighted plan. It's not going to get off the ground.

And fuck Raytheon, I don't care if their profits are up 20%, they're a bunch of DEATH PROFITEERS and I hope their stock crashes when Obama realizes his dog-wagging plan is a big no-go.

[DissidentVoice]

52. Well said, Marine

I was in the ANG. I was thankful that my unit - and I - had a clearly defined objective: in partnership with the Royal Canadian Air Force, through NORAD, to keep the skies over North America free of Tupolev 95's and any other Soviet hardware.

The Marines, I thought, had a clear objective as well: storm the beaches, take the hill (as you said) and be the pointy end of the Navy on land, backed up by your tactical air support, and keep detachments aboard Navy vessels to defend them from attackers.

We have no business being the world's police department. I don't care who is in the Oval Office, or what letter they have after their name.

We went through eight years of Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coasties, National Guard and Reservists being instruments of "regime change."

NO MORE!

Thank you for your service, leatherneck. My flight commander was a former Marine NCO who got an Air Force commission.

[marew]

60. Agreed! n/t

[michigandem58]

54. Hardly makes you unpopular here n/t

[kpete]

55. Doves ROCK!

[Harmony Blue]

56. That is the problem I have with all of this

1. How will the chemical weapons be secured?
2. If they are not secured what is stopping anyone from obtaining them and using them?
3. Syria army is going to scatter by the time the token cruise missiles strike. Besides, Hezbollah is the backbone of the asymmetrical warfare taking place for the Syrian army.
4. Russia will keep the arms flowing for a variety of reasons

[bvar22]

57. No clear Military Objective = No Exit Strategy = Quagmire

DURec.

Thanks for your service.

[Enthusiast]

58. I suspect the REAL

reason for the proposed military strike is to suck us into a wider Middle East conflict.

[DeSwiss]

61. War never makes things better. Even when they say it will.

Especially when they say it will. It's the opposite of making things better. America has been making war since its founding. War is what we do. It's what we're good at.

America's military secured the land mass internally for the American owners at the beginning. And it now secures the world's resources for those same people.

When you're unpopular because you're against ''war that makes no sense,'' then you're in the best company. Stay put......

K&R

[gopiscrap]

62. I stand with you!

[blkmusclmachine]

63. It'll work out as well as "hope" and "change" worked out.

In other words ...

[tclambert]

65. I thought the plan was to keep killing people until they love us.

I think the great philosopher Ted Bundy came up with that one. I'm not real clear on the details of how killing people will make them love us, but I'm sure the brilliant minds in Washington have it all figured out.

[rhett o rick]

67. I agree. I believe our interference will only make things worse. nm

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

70. I have been to Auschwitz,

to Treblinka, to Fort IX in Kaunas, and a number of other sites. This is a tough one. I detest warfare, yet what do we do?

[Sand Wind]

71. +10e10

[TeamPooka]

72. You are not a lonely dove and neither am I. nt

[workinclasszero]

74. The MIC wardogs don't give a damn about precise military objectives

They also don't give a shit how many American men and women die, how many Syrian people die, get gassed etc.

All they care about is perpetual war...its all about the TRILLIONS of dollars that appear out of the thin air whenever CNN, NBC,ABC and Fox all decide the world...world my ass!(USA!USA!USA!)must respond to some slimeball somewhere in the world.

Of course these same pols are demanding the cutoff of unemployment, social security, food assistance to CHILDREN, women and old folks right here in USA!USA!USA! because we...uh..don't have the money for that shit!

But...

Trillions for death and destruction? OH HELLYEAH BABY, we got that covered!

We got our own slow motion crimes against humanity goin on right here and CNN,ABC,NBC,and Fox could give two shits about it cause the very fuckers foaming at the mouth for war OWN THEIR ASSES!

Maybe when many many many Americans have to watch their own children starve, get all health care taken away, have no jobs or shelter and are not allowed to vote..maybe then they can shake off the reich wing propaganda and fight these fascist bastards that control America today.

Maybe...

[toby jo]

77. +1

And how bout letting the Syrian people come to terms with themselves? Gee, could maybe a people with a white hot and totally defined memory of their own dysfunctions of power be the best dressed tool to answer its' tilt?

This is their game, we help them see that is what we do. No pushing, it only alleviates the enlightenment.

[klook]

75. I'm with you.

How does U.S. military action make things better in Syria? In the region?

And there are a number of scenarios that could spin out from a "clean-hands" air strike. For example: what if a U.S. plane is shot down? What if there's footage of collateral damage from U.S. weapons? What if one or more American service members are captured? What if there's a drone strike, FFS, resulting in collateral damage?

As much as I'm sickened by the atrocities perpetrated by the Assad regime, I'm also sickened by the prospect of "helpful" U.S. missiles raining down on the people of Syria.