Debates as to whether U.S. policy towards the situation in Syria should call for a military action, defending the civilians, wipe out the terrorist groups or specifically act on Syrian forces suspected to be using chemical weapons on the opposition have been taken a central place in foreign policy discussions. Some groups fear that US actions may not lead to the desired outcomes, but may end up with more consequences than current problem. They fear that it may escalate the violence, create regional division and even a power vacuum that may look good from extremists’side. Unplanned expenditure and domestic opposition to the military action are some of the factors suggesting that the US should not take part in the Syrian war1.
Administration critics argue that most the presumed costs of U.S. intervention are currently happening and that it will not make any difference if the U.S. gets involved in the Syrian conflict. Some believe that U.S. silence over the matter has a detrimental effect on its influence in the Middle East leading to the reconsideration of US foreign policy and revisiting of certain aspects that will increase their involvement in the Syrian war. Taking civilians into consideration, U.S. involvement in the Syrian war is inevitable. The Sectary of Sate’s announcement at the Friends of Syria Conference that the US and another member of “London 11”find it necessary to give coordinated assistance of non-lethal nature to the opposition is a good indication of what the U.S. needs to do2.