Since the 2011 Arab Spring, Syria has been in a state of civil war. Its volatile political and religious foundation, combined with the United States' already degenerating involvement with neighboring countries, has resulted in an international and domestic quagmire of Byzantine complexity.

President Barack Obama has been scandalized by virtually everyone for every reason since the crisis' escalation Aug. 21, when Bashar al-Assad's government is suspected of killing 1,400 of its own citizens with sarin gas.

Local academics and politicians responding to inquiries have proven just as divided as leaders on the international stage.

Northampton Community College political science professor Vasiliki Anastasakos explained the complicated background instigating the violence as deriving from both religious sectarianism and residual imperialist resentment. She said she believes even limited military action will only further fracture the combatants and seed violence through Syria's neighbors.

"That is why pursuing a diplomatic approach by talking with the Russians and using whatever resources are available through the U.N. is preferable in my opinion. The [alleged] use of chemical weapons by Assad's regime is a serious violation of the 1925 Geneva Convention's ban on such weapons," Anastasakos said.

"Yet, "punishing" Assad may result in much more killing of innocent civilians, and they have suffered enough. In addition, the anti-Assad rebel groups are not a monolithic group; some are more militant with ties to al-Qaeda, so getting rid of Assad doesn't guarantee a peaceful transition to a moderate coalition government but rather a prolonged conflict among all these groups for control."

U.S. Rep. Charlie Dent, R-15th, said in a recent editorial he feels the president has missed a number of opportunities for precision attacks or support that may have helped stabilize the region over the past two years.

Dent's office provided a partial transcript of a House Appropriations State and Foreign Ops Subcommittee meeting in February 2012 in which the congressman said he felt the Assad regime had lost all legitimacy and provided aid to U.S. enemies in Iraq.

According to Dent's office, he feels there are no good options and opposes putting U.S. troops in Syria. Tactical missile strikes will do little good, but humanitarian aid operations for the Syrian people should continue.

Sen. Pat Toomey, R-PA, issued a brief comment last week regarding the chemical attack calling for a carefully considered American response. "These weapons and his behavior pose a national security risk to the U.S." he said, and, "The President must explain to Congress and the American people the objectives and risks of any action."

Press Secretary Steven Kelly said as of Sept. 6 Toomey was undecided regarding a senate resolution.

Sen. Bob Casey Jr., D-PA, said recently he believes the limited use of force is needed.

"As I have said repeatedly, I have no doubt that Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people.

"I visited a Syrian refugee camp this spring, where I saw hundreds of young Syrian children hoping for a bright future. Last month, Assad unconscionably killed hundreds of children with chemical weapons. When a dictator or a terrorist organization uses chemical weapons in violation of international law, there must be a direct response. We cannot simply condemn this crime - it is in the U.S. interest to act."

Casey concluded, "I believe it is important that all aspects of our Syria policy be thoroughly debated with these national security interests in mind."