Without question, the situation in Syria is a humanitarian crisis. The United States should be using our leverage diplomatically and economically, along with other nations, to exert pressure to try and protect civilians and bring a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
However, I oppose military action in Syria. Intervening militarily would exacerbate – not resolve – the matter, and in the process will Americanize the Syrian civil war. In my assessment, we lack a full understanding of the dynamics on the ground and the Obama Administration has not clearly stated our strategy nor objectives. Furthermore, having served in the United States Army for 24 years, leading paratroopers in combat, I have concerns that some of the same rebel forces we would be supporting in Syria engaged in combat operations against our U.S. forces in Iraq.
The decision to use military force should always be one made with the utmost caution, with U.S. interests at stake, and with the consent of Congress. Importantly, rather than being solely concerned with U.N. approval, the President must come first to our own Congress for authorization, and I urge him to do so. Finally, I understand the impulse to take action in Syria; however, I hope the Presidents carefully considers this matter and resists the call from some to use military force in Syria.
Read more in the article below. While I don’t agree with the label in the headline, as I think this is a constitutional issue not an issue of being a hawk versus a dove, it is important we do not go to war with Syria – particularly without a vote.
We thank Rep. Gibson and agree with his excellent analysis. One side is a tyrant, but the other side is filled with members of extreme radical Muslims. This is a no-win and America should stay out in our opinion.