Or, perhaps, the question should be: why always U.S.?
President Obama apparently is weighing some kind of military strike against Syria in response to its government apparent use of chemical weapons against its own citizens. As described in the New York Times, the use of military force would be limited, designed to cripple the Assad dictatorship’s ability to use chemical weapons but not effecting “regime change.”
It seems like an effort to thread the eye of a needle with an awfully blunt instrument — but the issue I’m raising is more fundamental. I’m as appalled as any civilized person about the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons, but . . . can’t someone else do something about it? Syria isn’t our neighbor. We don’t share any kind of common cultural or linguistic heritage with Syria. Syria doesn’t have any great economic or geopolitical significance so far as I can determine. As a result, when it comes to Syria, our interests appear to be no greater than those of those of any other country, and much less than some.
So, when the Syrian government commits an atrocity, why do heads swivel in our direction — as they always seem to do? And, why are American Presidents eager to spend our treasure and risk the lives of our soldiers when that happens? Is it because they like being viewed as world leaders? Forgive me, but I would rather have a President whose focus is exclusively on our interests, assessed with a cold and calculating eye. In this case, what exactly would a Syrian adventure of the kind described by the New York Times accomplish for the United States? Even if successful, it would still leave the Assad government capable of slaughtering its people — only with conventional weapons, rather than chemical ones. And, of course, any involvement risks the possibility that some wild-eyed fanatics in the Arab world will swear out a jihad against the Great Satan because it, again, has intervened in the world’s most volatile region.
There is no reason why the United States should be involved in punishing Syria for its gross moral transgressions. The Arab League, or Turkey, or the United Nations, or some other country that shares a border or a language or some other cultural element with Syria should assume the lead. Our resources are not infinite, and it’s time we stopped acting like they were.