Syrian crisis needs thoughtful consideration

Published: Wednesday, September 4, 2013 at 12:30 a.m.
Last Modified: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 at 3:32 p.m.

Sentiment about the United States' role in world affairs has ranged from isolationist to interventionist since the nation became a superpower. World wars raged for many months twice during the last century before the U.S. became involved, and the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor spurred the entry in World War II. Vietnam became a quagmire that influenced foreign policy for several years, but the U.S. has shown more of a willingness to intervene in the past 25 years, sometimes with limited action, other times with an all-out invasion.

Once again an American president is faced with a difficult choice about how to proceed in an international matter. President Obama is weighing whether to take action against Syria, where evidence points to the government's use of chemical weapons against its own people. Obama previously indicated such action would trigger a response, words he may now wish he hadn't said. Other nations, except for France, have displayed an unwillingness to join the United States in a joint effort against Syria.

Military action may be a tough sale to the American people and Congress as well. Protracted wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the thousands of American soldiers who died, have caused many to grow weary of conflicts in faraway lands. Congressmen also are demanding a say-so in the use of the American military.

All those involved in weighing this important decision need to put aside any partisan jockeying and instead debate what role the United States should play in the world. Is the U.S. the world's policeman, intervening whenever a nation and its leaders act in a way we deem criminal or immoral? Or should the nation let such actions happen, as reprehensive as they may be, if they don't involve a direct attack on the United States?

Motivation always become tricky when it involves the Middle East, a region that provides oil to much of the world. Yet so many of the nations there are unstable, and many Americans don't always understand the cultural factors that may influence feelings about the U.S. Other cultures don't always share the same values as Americans, either.

Obama has not rushed in to Syria, and even within his administration there has been debate about the best course of action. Clearly a very limited response should be the most that the United States takes. No troops should be involved. But leaders must also weigh the potentially long-range consequences. It still remains to be seen what Afghanistan and Iraq will look like one, five or 10 years from now.

Nations don't always act in ways that most people find moral and acceptable. But that also doesn't mean the U.S. has a right to enforce its value system on those countries. A shift back to a more restrained approach would save lives, money and even the nation's reputation abroad.


▲ Return to Top