As the Obama administration weighs its options on Syria, there is no shortage of debate over what the United States should–or should not–do next in this escalating civil war.
Critics have blasted the administration’s plan to provide limited small arms to some rebels as “too little, too late.” But on the opposite side, supporters have hailed President Obama’s reserve as “prudent,” in light of Americans’ recent and ongoing involvement in Middle East conflicts.
“The criticism of ‘too little, too late,’ fails to take into account the president’s understandable caution, given our recent experience with entanglements militarily,” said Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, member of the Armed Services and Judiciary Committees, on msnbc Monday. “If we have learned nothing from Afghanistan and from the prior support for the Afghan rebels against the Soviets, it is that we own it if we break it. And the more we are involved, the more we need to be very, very watchful and cautious about how we’re going to be embroiled and entangled.”
Former U.S. Ambassador Marc Ginsberg disagreed, calling limited military aide “the equivalent of going into a tank battle with pea shooters.”
“This tokenism is really not going to help the president or U.S. policy in the long run,” said Ginsberg on msnbc Monday. “I’m really not in favor of it.”








