Politics Debate

Is there a clear and present danger to America, an ally or an important national interest?

How will the use of force eliminate or significantly reduce this danger?

How will we end the use of force and achieve a long-term resolution to the factors that created the threat?

6. Who is better for the United States, Assad or the rebels?

Neither is very good for American interests. Assad, in addition to being an oppressive dictator at home, is an anti-American leader who supports Iran and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. But he has at least been stable, rational and predictable. He causes trouble for the United States and its allies, but he's smart enough to stop short of anything crazy.

There's a growing fear that the rebels could be worse. Some groups say they want democracy but some openly espouse allegiance to al-Qaeda, and are already imposing a severe form of ultra-conservative Islamist rule. It's not clear who would come out on top, but political vacuums tend to empower extremists

The United States already saw this movie in Afghanistan; after an amalgam of rebel groups forced out the Soviet-backed puppet government, infighting among them led to civil war and ultimately Taliban rule. Perversely, the best way to keep this from happening in Syria is for the Assad government to retain at least some power.

7. How would strikes affect U.S. relations with the Arab world?

It sure wouldn't help. Although some Arab governments support strikes, quietly and not-so-quietly, actual Arab people tend to be deeply uncomfortable with the idea of Western military intervention in their region.

The first Gulf War, in which a U.S.-led force expelled Iraqi troops from Kuwait in 1990 and 1991, inspired pro-Saddam Hussein protests across much of the Arab world, even though Saddam himself was not particularly beloved. And the scars of the U.S.-led 2003 invasion of Iraq are far from healed. U.S. strikes on another Arab country, even if meant to ameliorate the war, are...