The big debate about a possible military strike on Syria is still raging, and there seems to be no clear indication of military action anytime soon providing Syria turns over its chemical weapons stockpile. There seems to be no good options, only the best of the worst. In my opinion, we're actually worse off not holding offending nations accountable when they decide to use chemical weapons to inflict mass casualties among civilians. My only reservations about military involvement with Syria are that we shouldn't engage in a unilateral action, and other nations need to step up to help enforce weapons bans such as this.

 Extremists infiltrating the rebel forces would like nothing more than to get another shot at US troops with IED's and other guerrilla tactics, so I believe the only boots on the ground in Syria should be those of a multinational United Nations force. It's time for Americans to be patient and allow for sincere diplomacy to work. The civil war will continue regardless of our military involvement, and it's up to the United Nations to expedite any peacekeeping activities to help contain this war and minimize casualties and the growing refugee humanitarian crisis.

 The US can assume a strong leadership role here, but we need to enlist the help of the world community in what is a global chemical weapons ban. Time for other major world powers to step and put their money and troops on the line as partners rather than spectators.