Patrick Kane
Superstar
Let the Sunnis take care of their issues.
The UK and Canadians voted no to joining any strikes. The French will probably do the same.
Hell, even the Arab League, the very people who are funding, supporting and arming the rebels voted against a strike.
Why? Because they want to save face while supporting anything the US does. The US doesn't give a shyt, they will go in there by themselves if they have to. Knowning this, Europe, Canada and the Sunnis get to sit back and enjoy, and then let the US receive the blowback later on.
Enough already. 12 years of war. Economy shytting itself and the treasury robbed clean. Let them handle their own conflicts for once.
I think there are some serious implications that could lead to further destabilizing of the region that could haunt the U.S in the future. Which will most likely be the case. As someone pointed earlier though, it is important to understand the U.S and its military acts within its own self-interest and with the military industrial complex money drying up from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, this intervention will be a nice little bone thrown to the hundreds of contractors around the world but more specifically in the U.S. In addition to this, the U.S will be able to ousts another Middle Eastern leader who opposes the U.S and their interests and and the U.S will be in position to establish some form of influence in the country and continue their geopolitical positioning in the Middle East, continuing to encircle Russia while taking their last ally in the Middle East. The U.S will always use the guise of "humanitarian action" to accomplish their goals because they'll laid the basis for this since the end of the Second World War through social, political and most importantly, economic means.
However, what happens when the U.S delivers its devastating strikes to the Syrian army and its military posts, most likely weakening their position and setting the Rebels up for the 'win'? It has been reported that the Taliban have joined the rebels in their fight against the Assad's army and that they've had some influence on the rebels (although this is still a bit unclear). If the Rebels are successful, then what? Is the U.S intervention to establish democracy in Syria (which is usually the rhetoric the government spews) or to simply provide military aid? These two will most likely be the debatable topics but the actions of the U.S government outline the typical realist approach the U.S taken for a number of years and which was further updated with new goals and objectives under the Bush Doctrine, specifically in the Middle East. The situation in Syria is complex and complicated but the goals of the U.S have always remained the same.