With the mounting allegations of the deployment of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime, the Obama administration is coming under increasing pressure to respond militarily. In the Financial Times, for example, Richard Haass, the president of the Council of Foreign Relations, writes that if these allegations are correct, then "it is essential to respond directly and meaningfully." Ambassador Lincoln P. Bloomfield, the chairman of the Stimson Center, agrees. Several weeks ago he addressed the Center for the National Interest to propose a carefully defined plan of action in Syria. His plan was featured on the National Interest web site. Now he further explicates his proposal in the video below.
Should America take a direct role in the conflict? Or would it simply become enmeshed in another bloody Middle East imbroglio? A thoughtful and incisive analyst of foreign affairs who has served in five Republican administration, Ambassador Bloomfield makes a number of points that help to outline the stakes of a possible military intervention in Syria. As it debates the wisdom of intervening, the Obama administration would do well to consider them.