In general terms, how involved do you think the US government should be when it comes to the current Syria situation?

Heavily involved (18%) – "We have a vested interest in a stable Syrian government that is more Western friendly than it is to Russian and others that stand in opposition. It's to our long-term strategic benefit."

• "When I chose heavily involved, I mean we should be as involved as possible necessary for Syria to get on a clear path toward a constructive rebuilding for its people. A stable Syria with a vision for prosperity for ALL its people would be a big step forward in establishing stability in the Middle East."

Somewhat involved (35%) – "Whether we like it or not, America is designated as the world police. We have the abiliity to recognize what will cause a war, and what will ultimately hurt other countries (ourselves included). If we do not involve ourselves, we will be drawn in. It never fails and history repeats itself."

• "The U.S. is likely to get involved in Syria’s transition because it aligns with several of its strategic interests. With the fall of Assad—a leader backed by Russia and Iran, two key U.S. rivals—the U.S. has an opportunity to influence the formation of a new government and limit the power of adversarial forces in the region. At the same time, supporting stability in Syria is closely tied to Israel's security, as ongoing tensions with Iran and Hezbollah in the area directly impact one of America’s allies. The U.S. has a history of stepping in to protect its own interests, as seen by their outpost in Syria, which can complicate things, but this situation calls for a more careful approach without getting involved militarily. By working with others and backing the creation of a stable, inclusive government, the U.S. could help make the transition smoother and set the stage for peace in the region."

"I'll be honest, I didn't know much about the regime and its collapse up until reading this newsletter. However, I do remember the years of the Bush administration and our heavy involvement in Iraq. That was a disaster, leaving many U.S. soldiers dead and wounded and thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq, a war fought for no concievable reason. I would like that to not happen again, but I can't say that there should be complete uninvolvment."

Loosely or not-at-all involved (47%) – "The US needs to get the hell out of the Middle East, where the death toll related to our military interventions plus military/insurgent operations funded by or armed by the US easily outnumbers the death toll associated with any so called dictator or terrorist organization that exists or has existed in the region (e.g. Al-Qaeda, Gaddafi, Suddam, Mohammad Mosaddegh, etc. etc. etc.)"

• "For the most part, we should let them figure it out. The more we meddle in the Middle East, the more enemies we make."

"There are reasons for us to be interested in this region, but historically, arming rebel groups in the area hasn't exactly gone well for us long term. We should, however, support Israel's occupation of the Heights. The newest occupant to power is a radical Islamist terrorist group that splintered from ISIS. Part of the reason Assad was so frustrating for all parties (local and international, and beyond the, you know, mass atrocities) was his support for the Iranian Supreme Leader and his willingness to run Khomeini's errands; it's unclear whether the new regime will do the same. If they do, Syria is in no better position than three weeks ago; supporting Israel in their control of a buffer zone defangs at least part of that threat."

• "The US involvement creates a lot of tension, a lot of killings, lots of famine and nothing good ever comes out of it except money in the US' pocket!"