To strike or not: What's at stake in Syria?

DOWNLOAD OUR FREE WKYC APPS

NORTHEAST OHIO -- To strike or not to strike: It's the question facing a nation.

For some, military action against Syria is a question of war. For others, it's a question of support, either standing with the Bashar Assad regime or striking against him.

Perhaps the most conflicted are those in the Northeast Ohio community with ties to Syria themselves.

"It gives it a different meaning when your mother, your 70-year-old mother, asks you on the phone, are you going to bomb us?" said Haitham Haddad, a physician who came to the United States more than twenty years ago when he was 24.

Monday Haddad organized an anti-war protest along Crocker Road in Westlake. Across the street, another group of protesters gathered in support of a strike against Assad.

"I'm afraid if no one stops him, the number of causalities will be in the thousands daily," said Ihsan Mamoun, also Syrian by birth. He supports strike to help free the Syrian people.

Protesters also gathered in Akron Monday to protest violence from a civil war half a world away.

How do we respond to a chemical attack against the rules of war? A strike suggested by President Obama would be the first direct U.S. intervention in this two-year struggle. Some think it stop a dangerous dictator; others say it would drag America into another war.

Syria is the size of Washington state in heart of the Middle East. The country has a population of 22.5 million people mostly of ethic Arab decent and practicing Islam. The government's most important allies are Russia, Iran and China, with Moscow supplying weapons and blocking United Nations from action against Assad.

"When the Assad regime used chemical weapons, someone should put a stop to him," said Mamoun.

Punishing Assad and helping the rebel forces could create an opportunity for jihadists fighting with the rebels to take over. It's what the U.S. did during Afghanistan's early 1990s civil war, which helped the Taliban take over in 1996.

"Don't kill my mom and Dad. Don't fight alongside Al-Qaida," read one anti-war protester.

Can the U.S., still under sequestration, even afford a war? A limited strike could cost $1 billion a month, according to figures from Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey.

And Assad has already promised retaliation.

"We're not, you know, the global police," said Adam Barrington, who organized the protest in Akron. "We're not there to spread democracy really."

Could diplomacy work? It's a prayer for peace. But others say Assad must pay for the thousands of innocents his armies have killed.

"I don't think that people understand the amount of suffering," said Mamoun.

There's another argument that the strikes aren't meant to topple Assad, but simply to discourage any other leader from crossing the red line of chemical weapons.

The long term impact is one that's weighing on our Congressional leaders as they decide their votes.

Ohio Senators Sherrod Brown and Rob Portman seem to be leaning toward supporting the plan, but haven't committed.

Many representatives in Washington are also undecided.

Congressman David Joyce joined Rep. Jim Renacci Monday, coming out against Obama's plan.

"I don't believe the Administration has made the case that military action is in the best interest of the United States and the region," said Joyce. "I plan on attending a classified briefing this evening to hear the Administration's case, but my fear remains that any military action could commit the U.S. to another prolonged military engagement in a region of the world in which civil war and hatred for the U.S. is the norm. At this point, I just don't see how this action is in our best interest."