Syria as of late has been a major issue in the Middle East; with a bloody civil war and being a source of thousands of fleeing refugees into Turkey and other outlying countries. The situation as of late however has taken a very serious turn for the worse as British Intelligence has identified the use of Chemical Weapons in Syria. This goes against the Geneva  Protocol (http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Bio/pdf/Status_Protocol.pdf)

And thus serves as an issue for the national community into how intervention should work. Though this is a tragedy and a disaster for humanity, I think that the United States should not try to intervene militarily as this would cause problems for both the United states and the civilians in Syria.

            From a military standpoint, the whole issue of Syria is a quagmire in itself that would not accomplish as much as would be needed to deal with the problem. This is due to the fact that we lack the element of surprise, if we were to attempt tomahawk strikes which would be the ideal attack (other than on the ground deployment) most likely the means of weapon deployment would have been moved to civilian sites we cannot attack (school, churches, etc.) or civilians would have migrated to known sites of attack. Thus any attack that we would launch would have questionable effectiveness, which is an issue since we would likely lose 30-80 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles, which the Navy values at a cost of $569,000. Additionally, the regime has also made statements threatening action if provoked, which would further damage the situation.

            From a political standpoint, even though the regime has crossed the theoretical line, the most impressive course of action would be a diplomatic one. There is a possibility of diplomacy through Russia, which I believe is a better option than another military strike. It would increase our future propensity for international leverage and would better prove that the United States is still a strong international power.

            -Abner Casillas-Colon