Should the US Conduct Strikes in Syria?

It is the biggest story of the day: The potential for US to conduct strikes in Syria in response to chemical weapons use by the Assad regime against its own citizens. Well, surprise surprise- by and large, most people's opinions tend to fall along their party affiliation. It seems to me that Democrats think strikes are necessary and Republicans think that the United States should mind its own business.

"Hey, Conservative Cody, what do you think about Syria?"
"Well, Liberal Laura, I think that we have no business there because GOP!"

I don't know what the United States should do. I do think that there should be a response to the use of chemical weapons. The response should be from the United Nations, not the United States of America. I know that that statement is loaded. For example, Russia and China hold VETO power in the UN Security Council and aren't likely to support strikes. I also believe that President Obama backed himself into a corner by making his "red line" statement. Now we have Iran watching for any actual response (or lack their of) from the United States. Also, al-Qaeda and Iran are supporting the rebels in Syria, so attacking the Assad regime is supporting them. Not a very pretty scenario. What happens if the Assad regime were to fall due to strikes? Who would fill the power vacuum. So many difficult questions and know easy answers.

The troublesome thing about all of this is that, once again, our country is proving itself inept at critical thinking and instead are relying on party affiliation to help them make decisions and arguments. Everyone from politicians to average Joe at the water cooler is weighing on it and for the most part, it is all about the party you support. That is a trend that has gotten this great nation to the political stalemate that we see today. Politicians don't vote for legislation based on the action, result and benefit of the purposed law. No, they vote for whether or not it forwards their parties narrative. The American public at large is no better. If a Liberal supports a piece of legislation drafted and overwhelmingly supported by Conservatives, he/she is a sellout. if the inverse is true, the Conservative member is labeled a RINO (Republican In Name Only). And a lot of those labeled politicians lose re-elections in favor of more extreme left/right candidates, further polarizing the political debate.

The question of striking Syria isn't a partisan one. It is a decision based on morality and practicality. It must be looked at carefully. Is it in the United States best interests to strike? I don't know. I don't envy President Obama's position. As the leader of the free world, he has to lead the way in trying to keep travesties, like those in Syria, from happening. I think that maybe, just maybe, everyone should put down the party banner, pick up the American banner, and look at this in a pragmatic way. It is only in that way that the best decision, whatever it may be, can be reached. I promise that the petty arguments will still be there after this is over.

E pluribus unum.