Should Obama avoid the Syrian war under present financial conditions?

Rather than paying attention to the immediate financial dangers hovering over the US empyrean, the government is paying increased attention to the Syrian issues. However, majority of the Americans aren't wishing to take part in the Syrian war, in any form. In fact, Obama administration is framing to launch a military action in Syria. Although, there isn't any major support for the president, according to the analysts, taking part in the Syrian war is not going to have any long lasting consequences on the American economy. It was last year itself, when Obama had declared that he is going to take serious steps against Bashar al-Assad, if his government used any form of chemical weapons on the rebels.

What others have to say?

According to William Galston, who has worked as the domestic advisor for the former President Bill Clinton. "Doing nothing - that is what would be devastating." He added that "Obama has to consider the implications for other policy areas if he fails to act." Considering the fact, that the recent chemical explosive resulted in the death of hundreds of Syrians (both adults and children), Obama cannot "have that luxury," of not reacting to the situation.

On the other hand, it is feared that the US is soon going to hit the debt ceiling within October, 2013. So, with that, the government will no more be able to borrow any money officially from others. It is being presumed that only in such a situation may the Treasury think of unleashing the "extraordinary measures", as has been outlined by the Treasury Department. However, if such measures are actually going to work, is a matter of serious concern.

So, in such a situation, the government is supposed to act solely in the interest of the nation. The government should take the right measures in order to avoid the commencement of such a deadlock. Getting into the Syrian war front is going to cost the US quite a huge sum. In addition, there also are associated with this, some serious political ramifications of the interference.

However, it seems that Obama may have no other option, but to react in such a situation, Almost all of the politicians starting from the Congressional members to the Democrats, all want Obama to intervene into the Syrian political unrest.  Senator John McCain of Arizona leading the Republican party has been disparaging the government for making slow moves. Previously, common people too had wanted the government to intervene, but with time, this number has dipped. Reports show that almost 60% of the Americans have turned against the US intervention, in Syrian matters. Furthermore, only 9% of the Americans are still backing the gravity of the US intervention. Infact, Ipsos pollster Julia Clark too, is of the opinion - "My prediction would be that public opinion would swing very quickly to support the military action in Syria," and that "The danger for Obama is if it becomes more prolonged."

Therefore, Obama will have to decide on the course of action, when Congress will be preparing to restore the discussion over the continuous US budget problem. Furious debates are going on, where the central idea is the budget cuts. If the government actually introduces the budget cuts, it is going to have a negative effect on the jobs and the economy in a serious way. So, in such a grave situation if the government has to intervene in the Syrian warfront, it definitely isn't going to be easy for the economy. The war costs will add to the reeling pressure of the US debt, as there is no foolproof method for the government to obtain freedom from debt.