FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
As Syria's brutal crackdown intensifies it seems increasingly likely that there could be some sort of military action.
The United Nations is calling for the international community to protect the Syrian population.
One opposition group reports that government forces killed more than 130 civilians in Syria today - most of them in the city of Homs.
There are reports of bomb explosions every few minutes; of wounded people bleeding to death in the streets because they can't get help; and of snipers picking off civilians who are running for cover.
Doctors inside Syria say government forces are targeting hospitals, medical staff and patients.
Meanwhile the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command have started reviewing military options.
One senior official calls it a "scoping exercise" to see what's possible - given all our other military commitments in the region.
It's not unusual for the Pentagon to do such a planning exercise - so they have options ready if the president wants them.
They're likely considering everything from humanitarian relief to support for opposition groups. Senior officials tell CNN that outright military strikes are unlikely.
Some have suggested setting up a "humanitarian corridor" or safe haven for civilians. That could require the use of troops.
Others, including senator John McCain, have said the U.S. should consider all options "including arming the opposition."
The State Department says while they never take anything off the table, they don't think sending more arms into Syria is the answer.
It's believed that any military action in Syria would be riskier and more complicated than the Libyan mission. And a lot of people don't think the U.S. should have gotten involved in that.
Here’s my question to you: If there is military action against Syria, should the U.S. be involved?
Tune in to the Situation Room at 4pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.
And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.