UNITED STATES -- Congressmen Chris Gibson and Paul Tonko weighed in regarding the possibility of a military strike in Syria.
"When it comes to our actions, we have to ask a simple question. Is what we're contemplating, in this case military intervention, is that going to make it better, or is it going to make it worse? It's my judgment that if we strike Syria now, militarily, we're not going to resolve this matter, in fact we'll make it worse. We're better off de-escalating, and not escalating, but I would tell you the best course of action is the diplomatic track," Gibson said.
Tonko said, "We need to tread cautiously as we move forward. We need to make certain that as we continue to gather evidence and intellectual data, our agencies that feed this process will provide a deliberate plan. I hope that we can move forward with every option including diplomacy coming to the table bringing thoughts together that are required to strive for peace in an area of the world that is tremendously stressed."
Great Britain and Russia have both decided against taking part in any military intervention in Syria.
Should Obama authorize a military strike in Syria, it wouldn't be the first time a president did so without broad foreign support.
Ronald Reagan's invasion of Grenada in 1983 and George H.W. Bush's invasion of Panama in 1989 were both without assistance from our allies.
Obama could authorize a military strike without Congressional approval because of the War Powers Act of 1973.