synopsis: The article in essence goes into the intricacies and pitfalls of various options that await President Obama. While the article does not state that the four options listed are the only possible options, it does say that those are the most likely and practical. The options listed were: arming the rebels, stepping up humanitarian aid, limited US strikes, and sustained US engagement.
While reading this article, my opinion began to form on an issue that I was previously ignorant about. After a short while it seemed that stepping up humanitarian aid was the only logical option. Seeing as the public and a majority of congressmen currently oppose any US engagement, I would have to agree. This option, although costly, creates the least conflict in a congress torn by political allegiances. While I do recognize our responsibilities as a member of the UN security council, we must also recall that an official UN resolution is yet to be reached on the issue as a whole. I believe that any sort of military engagement would simply create further resentment of the US in the Middle East and cause a great deal of political and social strife among citizens and senators alike. I am not saying we slap Bashar al-Assad on the wrist and move along, but I believe, especially given our tense relations with he Middle East, that it is our imperative to be on the correct side of morality this time around and while we wait for the UN to come to a resolution, step up our non lethal humanitarian aid.