Should America intervene in Syria? Congress has certainly not authorized intervention. In fact, Pat Buchanan correctly writes that an unprovoked attack on Syria would be an impeachable act. As Pat notes, the Washington Post has opined that we must address the “growing threat…to vital U.S. interests.” But take a look at your globe for a fact check as to whose vital interests might be threatened. You will quickly see that the countries with logical concern are Syria’s proximate neighbors Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey.
What are the arguments for intervention? Same old, same old.
America has a moral obligation to end the barbarism. At the time of Rwanda we said, “Never again!” Yet it is happening again. And we have a “Responsibility to Protect” Syrians from a dictator slaughtering his own people.
But while what is happening in Syria is horrible, all Middle East ethnic-civil-sectarian wars tend to unfold this way.
And if there is a “moral” obligation to intervene, why does it not apply to Israel and Turkey, Syria’s nearest neighbors? Why does that moral duty not apply to the European Union, upon whose doorstep Syria sits? Why is it America’s moral obligation, 5,000 miles away?
It is not. The Turks, Israelis, EU and Gulf Arabs who hate Assad would simply like for us to come and fight their war for them.
The Washington Post says we must address not only the moral “nightmare,” but also the “growing threat … to vital U.S. interests.”
Exactly what “vital interests” is the Post talking about? Syria has been ruled by the Assads for 40 years.
And how have our vital interests been imperiled?
And if our vital interests are imperiled, how much more so are those of Israel and Turkey? Yet neither has chosen to invest the blood of their sons in bringing Assad down.
Latest posts by Richard C. Young (see all)
- Should the Brits Arm Themselves Against Radical Islam? - September 25, 2017
- The Armed American Family: Part I - September 25, 2017
- “Meet Me at Freddy’s” - September 22, 2017