“Heritage Action is opposed to punitive missile strikes on the Syrian regime. Yesterday’s hearing made it clear there is not a vital U.S. interest at stake. Further, there is not a clear, achievable, realistic purpose to the use of force being contemplated by the Obama administration and officials offered little evidence such action would prevent further abuses.”Here is an article from Heritage scholar James Carafano on the top five reasons not to use missile strikes in Syria.
But at the Heritage Foundation, there seems to be many differing views on action in Syria. Here is what the Washington Post said in an article this week:
Heritage Action jumped into the foreign policy arena Wednesday when it declared there was “not a vital U.S. interest at stake” in attacking Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons. That stands in sharp contrast with recent statements from Heritage analysts, including several who called for urgent action on Syria last November and said the United States should “work closely with allies to accelerate the fall of the Assad regime.”The Heritage Foundation was recently ranked as the 18th best think tank in the world by the annual University of Pennsylvania think tank rankings. It was rated the 9th best think tank in the US. It was also rated as the #1 think tank in the world in terms of best use of social media and the Internet. Heritage was also rated as the 10th best think tank in the world in terms of most significant impact on public policy.
