Should The U.S. Military Get Invloved In Syria?

Why?

(The following is my opinion, and mine alone.)

The Syrian government has allegedly subjected dissident citizens (and innocent children) to chemical agents as a means to quell the uprising. Nasty stuff, to be sure. Hundreds have died, according to some sources. The Syrian president has stated his nation will respond forcefully to any nation that inserts itself into Syrian internal politics by supporting the dissidents.

For me, I can't help but wonder. As a veteran, I can remember when my initial reaction would have been "we've trained for this type of operation. Let's go put that training to use." As a "regular citizen", I wonder what we'd gain. Stability in the Middle East? Maybe, but we thought that before.

Last week, I heard the Secretary of State allude to the possibility that if the U.S. didn't take a stand, two things were likely: a) other nations would be emboldened to also use chemical weapons in future conflict, and b) other nations would be emboldened to ratchet up plans to hurt or destroy U.S. resources or interests here or abroad. Those scenarios may well may be possible.

As usual, we need the best intel we can get before these type of decisions are made. Intelligence-gathering being a dirty business, most Americans would rather be kept in the dark when it comes to the nature of that enterprise. O.K., I guess. Even if it's distasteful, I really hope our decision-makers have "ground truth" before committing troops and resources to that part of the world.

I also understand the feeling a lot of Americans have regarding "war-weariness". Conflict in Afghanistan has gone on for a long while, and we didn't get the satisfying ending we wanted. So many troops, mostly the young who had lives in front of them, came home in transfer cases. So many maimed, physically and emotionally. What do we do?

It appears the Senate and House are reluctant to commit troops towards this conflict. The media tells us the POTUS wants to use military force to "level" the conflict, where neither side is using chem warfare. We've been told U.S. involvement would be limited/highly restricted. There'd be no U.S. "boots" on the ground in Syria. That statement is hard to predict, hard to guarantee. Depending on how our involvement evolved, it's not a big step to later send "advisors" in to evaluate the effectiveness of our weapons, tactics, doctrine, etc.

"Oh-by-the-way", with the effects of sequestration and other Defense Department budget cuts/restrictions, can we even afford another drawn-out armed action?

It may seem like a small step in a country far away, but it's a bigger deal than the average American may realize.

What do YOU think?