Since the Daraa uprising in 2011, sparked by the arrests of 15 children for painting anti-government graffiti on a school wall, Syria’s Ba’ath government has faced increasing opposition.

Because of the the uprising, Syria has been divided between opposing forces, leading to a violent civil war.

When chemical weapons were suspected of being used during fighting in Damascus, international pressure regarding the conflict increased dramatically.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the logical course of action in this milieu is diplomacy and a policy of careful intervention.

The United States has only recently taken a larger but unpopular role in this international conflict regarding chemical weapons.

With many possible courses of action for the United States, ranging from a full-scale war to a firm policy of non-intervention, many favor a diplomatic political solution as the most appropriate for several reasons.

Although President Obama’s original reaction was to propose a call for military action, Russia’s metaphorical olive branch has helped lead efforts to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

Russia’s proposal of having Syria turn in its chemical weapons to be destroyed, as well as Iran’s offer to mediate peace talks, have provided two possible pathways to peace.

In the United States’ weakened and vulnerable economic position, the negative repercussions of getting involved in a conflict greatly outweigh the benefits of intervention.

The situations in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown us that wars will negatively impact America’s political and   economic standing.

Vladimir Putin’s article in the New York Times and the Russian government’s peaceful approach have already painted Obama’s call for airstrikes in a negative light.

“It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it,” wrote Putin.

With the British Parliament voting against military support, and a divided United Nations, the United States may be left alone in its military efforts against Syria.

Facing the lack of widespread international support and the threat of being targeted for violence by supporters of the Syrian government if the call to arms is answered, the U.S. would be taking on a huge unnecessary risk.

Another unforeseen consequence hits directly at the heart of the issue. American missiles might impact countless innocent civilians caught up in the Syrian conflict, hurting the very people we claim to protect.

The United States is known to be the leader of the free world. Its call for the violent method instead of the diplomatic approach for solving this political problem will surely be debated in the weeks to come.