The question is not should we get involved, but how? (FreedomHouse, Creative Commons)

Their viewpoints on Syria, ranging from the far-fetched and ridiculous to the valued and sensible, saturate Twitter, Facebook and every aspect of the digital world they can get their hands on.

Welcome to the new age of diplomacy: the age of limited secrecy and mass opinion. One in which tens of thousands rally for the upheaval of a centuries old judicial system because one Florida murderer "got away with it," but cower at the thought of punishing those responsible for a massacre of more than 1,400 innocent civilians. An international landscape that focuses more on the possibility of the U.S. breaching international precedent by going against UN wishes instead of the outrageous crimes against humanity that have been committed. Fear over moral responsibility and financial worries over punishing the guilty. Welcome to the new normal, where we question the use of force and if aggressive military responses will ever again be the favorite option.

The case in Syria cannot be left alone. While the United States does not need to act as the world's police force, President Obama's “red line” protocol has placed America in a position it can’t work itself out of, one that requires action to be taken against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Inaction would send the message to authoratative rulers and terrorists alike that U.S. power and influence consists of nothing but empty threats and hot air.

Therefore, the question is not should we get involved, but rather how. Obama has made known his current choice of a limited military response, with no boots on the ground and no open-ended conflict. So the Obama administration wants to attack Syrian civilians to punish Assad for attacking Syrian civilians? In what world does that make sense? An attack would not send a message to the Assad regime but rather spark fury and increased aggression against the United States. Forcibly removing Assad from office creates too many unpredictable possibilities and risks further destabilizing the region. But now that the "red line" has been crossed and America's involvement is imminent, what can be done about it?

The rest of the world continuously condemns and critiques the actions of American powers in other countries, yet these critics are rarely willing to step in themselves. Currently, the UN consists of 193 member states, including Syria. This means 193 countries have, in theory, vowed against crimes against humanity and agreed upon the responsibility to protect.

All but five nations of the world have signed the Chemical Weapons Convention. While Syria remains outside of these signatories, 191 countries remain that supposedly do not support the use of chemical weapons. Ultimately, the world needs to come together to condemn the Assad regime’s actions and ensure they will not be repeated. America does not need to act as the world's police force, the world needs to act as the world's police force. A global coalition needs to attack Assad's credibility and economic welfare, ultimately sending the message to other unstable countries and corrupt groups that the world won't stand for the taking of innocent lives.

The violence in Syria and the actions in response will have multiple implications, but more importantly, standards will be set. This is a test for the Obama administration, the United States and the world. What happens in these coming days will dictate future decisions of corrupt dictators and events in violence-stricken regions. The more time spent on a decision, the closer human rights abusers get to the winner’s circle. Every second of hesitation the world takes, and every country that decides intervention doesn't align with their interests, weakens the international code condemning illegal weapons. The limited attack that President Obama has hinted at illustrates a weak America and gives little incentive for abusers to fear retaliation for their actions. 

The United States should not act without allies and other major powers. President Obama cannot lead a half-assed effort. One without full force—and by force I mean pressures against Assad not military attacks on the region—will not develop future precedence. The coming days will tell a lot about the future of the United States as a world power and the future of the views and acceptances of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. No right answer exists. Every option has its shortcomings but one fact remains true, something has to be done.

While the American people may continue to promote a path of neutrality, doing nothing suggests a future filled with more attacks on the Syrian people, regional neighbors, allies—and even possible strikes on American soil. It creates a scenario where the international code of checks and balances against illegal weaponry and violent massacres could cease to exist. The actions to be taken, whatever they may be, must be taken by multiple powers and ultimately must punish those responsible directly and with every effort possible.

Read more Neon Tommy coverage of Syria here.

Contact Erin MacLeod here; follow her here.