This thread is designed to discuss the American POV and not the Syrian conflict itself per se. So mods please don't merge this thread with another generalized one. I'm against any American intervention in Syria for the following reasons: There is no "good outcome": This is pretty obvious. It'll be another classic example of a power vacuum induced catastrophe. Throwing full support behind the rebels would be a disaster. There was an attempt to provide short term support to force Assad to the negotiating table, but even that didn't work. There no end point in mind: The administration has been floundering on listing the exact objectives of the Syrian intervention. They don't intend to destroy the current regime or kill Assad, there's no plan to make it into a peace keeping venture (untenable anyways). At this point it's something along the lines of "punitive strikes" against the military units which supposedly carried out the attacks with the hope that it'll deter Assad from using chemical weapons again. How the destruction of select military hardware and infrastructure associated with a particular unit of the national army serves as an effective deterrent remains an unsubstantiated theory. The evidence is still a bit shoddy. We have absolutely nothing to gain by getting involved here. This again is an obvious fact, it's not like anyone in that part of the world is going to thank us for crippling Assad and saving innocent lives. If anything it'll merely be another addition to the "great Satan" narrative. Russia and China will be let off the hook yet again. This impending intervention has shifted all the focus upon the US and NATO members. Nobody's talking about how Russia and China are actively protecting a genocidal regime (there is a long historical precedence for this). Nobody ever fails to bring up the evils of American foreign policy (rightfully so)... well China and Russia aren't any different, if anything they're worse and this fact will never get the attention it deserves if we steal the spotlight yet again. The actual reason for intervention is not justifiable. Yes, partly this is about punishing a terrible dictator who's doing terrible things. But this is turning out to be more about geopolitical prestige. The prevalent dogma (which I don't agree with) is that not following through on the attacks will make America look weak and thereby embolden adversarial nations like Russia, China and Iran who will then pose a "national security risk." This is actually a rather immature outlook. Our ego can no longer be considered a matter of national security. Not being aggressive may give adversarial entities some bragging rights, but that poses no palpable threat to us. Sometimes not doing anything is the best option. All these adversarial nations are actually pretty terrible and brutal regimes, and as I mentioned before the US really needs to keep out of the spotlight and let the world see the true nature of Assad's protectors. Obama has basically cornered himself by setting his "red lines". He should have never done it. Granted internal politics is a major factor here. His political opponents would trash him for being "weak" and indifferent to "moral issues"; like it or not the petty politics of the United States makes it compulsory for an American president to persist with the hegemonic outlook. Obama may not be a trigger happy moron like his predecessor, but he isn't exactly a pacifist either, so I'm totally expecting him to go through with this. I have no doubt that there are many Syrians who would disagree with me because at this point they are desperate for any intervention. I am by no means blind or indifferent to the horrible humanitarian disaster here. I just don't think the United States has anything positive to offer (in the long term). At some point the inhabitants of the middle east are going to have to resolve their own issues, and if they align themselves with Russia and China then so be it; after all the consequences are theirs to face.