Months ago President Obama stated that the use of chemical weapons would signify the crossing of a proverbial "red line" at which point the United States would get involved. In the past few weeks United Nations weapons inspectors have been gathering evidence as to whether or not a confirmed chemical attack had taken place. At this point it is pretty clear that such an attack did in fact take place.
Instead of ordering a military strike against Assad which is within his powers as Commander in Chief, President Obama has decided to seek congressional backing before acting... something that is far from guaranteed. With a Republican controlled House and a deeply divided Democratically controlled Senate, the President's legacy may very well depend on the decision of our national law makers. Even if the President does not gain congressional approval for a military strike, he would still be within his right to order an attack.
Many argue that because the war in Syria does not pose direct threat to American interests or the interests of American allies, the United States should remain out of the conflict, others claim that the United States has a moral obligation to defend innocent civilians, many of them children, against chemical and biological attacks from a dictatorial government.
Do those who have an ability to act, have a responsibility to act? Or should we act only when we are directly threatened?
Thoughts?