By JAVIER MANJARRESAs the body count in Syria continues to stack up, more and more publically elected officials are now taking a firm position on whether or not the U.S. should engage Syria militarily.
Former U.S. Senator Jon Kyle has just stated that the situation in Syria has escalated to a level of “national security interest” for the U.S., and called for a the military to conduct joint airstrikes with British and French airforces, including using American Cruise missiles to hit Assad’s military assets. Kyle also stated that pressure needed to be put on the country of Qatar in an effort to disuade them from supplying of the Jihadist element in Syria with weapons, whom they have been arming with weapons.
The fear that many legislators have expressed in regards to Syria is, in the case where Assad is ousted from power, will the political vacuum created with his absensce, be filled with the same type of Islamist fundamentalists that now control Egypt.
“You need the center of gravity to instigate this coalition (supporting opposition groups in Syria) and move forward with a defined plan,” said Rubio. “In the absence of American power and American influence and American leadership, it’s hard to do that.”-Sen. Marco Rubio
Kyle, Senators McCain, Graham, and Marco Rubio has been supportive of the plan to send “humanitarian and ‘non-lethal’ aid,” are now supportive of a ‘lethal’ military strike.If the tough military talk my elected officials is any indication that a U.S. strike on Syria is a very real possibility, then take what Admiral James G. Stavrids told the Senate Armed Services Committee at face value.
“The U.S. will play a direct role in taking out Bashar Assad’s government if called upon to do so. “We are prepared if called upon to be engaged.
Share and “Like” the story below. Thanks.