Should the U S intervene in the Syria conflict

Also, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon remarked, “After nearly two years, we no longer count days in hours, but in bodies. Another day, another 100, 200, 300 dead,” (p.4).
The rapid death rate has also been abundantly documented by Human Rights Watch, the U.N. Independent International Commission on Inquiry on Syria and Amnesty International. All have charged the regime of Assad with a state sanctioned policy ‘crimes against humanity’ and ‘war crimes. Besides, the UNHCHR and Navi Pillay have appealed to the U.N. Security Council several times to refer the country to the International Criminal Court (ICC) (Hashemi and Postel, p.4).
Syria’s ghost of conflict has been on the limelight of the world for about two years but there seems to be no consensus on how to address the disaster completely. The U.S., the E.U., the U.N. and the Middle East nation-states are mystified on how to cease Syrian conflict (Hashemi and Postel, p.5). Several politics and moral arguments have emerged lately concerning the intervention of the U.S. in addressing conflict of Syria. This paper will justify the involvement of the U.S. in Syrian conflict and refute some of the opposing arguments against the intervention.
First, through sending of its forces to Syria, the U.S. could alleviate massive slaughtering of Syrian civilians. The U.S. has to intervene for humanitarian purposes and to prevent a similar occurrence in the future. Morgan-Russell (p.1) argues that in 1994, the international community watched as Rwandan Hutu group armed with machetes massacred the Tutsi community across the country. Despite the fact that the U.S. and human rights observers provided evidence on the heinous acts, the U.S. came to a decision that it had no permanent interests in the African Great Lakes Region and that deploying few soldiers would be extremely risky. After three months, about 900,000 Rwandans were massacred. The international community blamed the U.S.