Continued unrest in Syria over independence from the government causes U.S. to reassess their involvement (Creative Commons).

No decisions have been made, however, providing Syrian rebels with arms is one highly considered possibility.  Another would be to plant allied services on the ground next to these opposition fighters in areas they now largely control.

From the New York Times:

The most urgent decision, likely to come next week, is whether NATO should deploy surface-to-air missiles in Turkey, ostensibly to protect that country from Syrian missiles that could carry chemical weapons. The State Department spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, said Wednesday that the Patriot missile system would not be “for use beyond the Turkish border.”

 But some strategists and administration officials believe that Syrian Air Force pilots might fear how else the missile batteries could be used. If so, they could be intimidated from bombing the northern Syrian border towns where the rebels control considerable territory. A NATO survey team is in Turkey, examining possible sites for the batteries.

Some officials argue forceful measures by the U.S. are warranted because of the lives lost in Syria, the risk of chemical weapons and the opportunity to hit Iran's only ally in the region.  But others say the risk of American lives and possibly igniting a broader conflict with Turkey isn't worth it. 

Up until now, the U.S. has only offered aid through humanitarian efforts amounting to nearly $200 million.  Minimal support has been given to military units against the Syrian government.  A few C.I.A officers operated secretly in southern Turkey in past months, helping allies decided which rebel fighters would receive weapons.  

Read more of Neon Tommy's Syria coverage here.

Reach Executive Producer Lauren Foliart here.