The tangled web of Syria

Carla Axtman

If there was ever a kobyashi maru of foreign policy situations, Syria is it. We can either support Assad, the guy who quite clearly murdered civilians with chemical weapons and plays footsie with Vlad, or we can support the jihadist rebels who don't trust the United States and probably hate us as much as they hate Assad.

Another option is of course, to stay out of it completely. Which is not without it's moral dilemmas.

The Oregon delegation's response thus far as been spotty. Greg Walden's response is practically babble.

My friend Markos posted a withering response to Nick Kristof's support for military action against Syria. I respect and admire both of these people and I think they both make legitimate points. I'm torn.

I was a full-on detractor of the Iraq War from the beginning. It was always clear to me that President Bush was trying to line up information and squish the facts into whatever he could to justify his desire to engage in military action against Saddam Hussein. Syria doesn't smack of that same thing. The consensus really does seem to be heading to the conclusion that Assad engaged in a large chemical weapons attack on August 21. I've had a number of off-the-record conversations with staffers who work for elected federal officials as well as reporters, and that's where they see it going, too.

At the same time, like most everyone else, I'm tired of war. It's exhausted our national resources and claimed the lives of so many of our young people. Heading in to yet another conflict, with little in the way of possible good outcomes, seems pretty bleak.

I can't divine a clear and convincing argument of advocacy in any direction here. Can you?

By Carla Axtman Sept. 05, 2013