As the crisis in Syria deepens, a debate rages as to whether the world community should authorize military strikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. While U.S. President Barack Obama is making the case for a targeted strike against Syria using cruise missiles fired from ships in the Mediterranean, he faces a reticent Congress.
Should Obama get Congress to approve a strike, it’s unclear what the coalition will look like. As U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has said, the United State’s “oldest ally,” France, would join a coalition in punishing Assad for his alleged use of chemical weapons against the rebels seeking to overthrow his government. Across the pond, the decision to strike Syria is just as debatable as in the United States. The British Parliament voted against authorizing a military strike against Syria, going against the wishes of President David Cameron. Britain is wary about the crisis turning into another Iraq. Concerns include whether a military strike will lead to an even greater commitment in Syria.
There are also some American politicians who aren’t even convinced that Assad has used chemical weapons. U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Tex., is among those who have doubts as to whether Assad used such weapons or if the chemical warfare was initiated by the rebels.