Fast forwarding to Syria in 2013, there is a looming involvement for the U.S. Yes, we ought to be skeptical of our involvement in any war and what we can take away from the end result.
After the invasion of Iraq, who can blame them? We were told by our highest officials there were weapons of mass destruction.
What makes Syria different are a few factors. First, it’s clear that chemical weapons are being used on innocent people, not the least of which are women and children. Using chemical weapons as a last line of defense is barely justifiable, it at all, but using them on your own people is another matter. President Obama has indicated this involvement will not involve American troops on the ground. Precision air strikes and computer-operated and -controlled “drones” have made this possible. Add to that the fact that Syria is a relatively compact country in a region of the world where the U.S. has immense interests and the energy security of the free world and giving in to unfriendly nations who want to take over Syria is an untenable option.
What makes this situation so difficult is that so many nations expect so much from the U.S. that when times like these arise, more is expected of those nations. But don’t expect China to send in troops to help resolve human rights issues.
What we should expect is a secured Syria and a United Nations presence that stops the senseless bloodshed and restores order. Sen. Richard Lugar has been an unabashed supporter of intervention, and it’s not because he wants to make Syria our 51st state.
If we really want this war to be over, over there, this time, and we want to avoid a world conflict that drags the Middle East, Europe, Asia and North America into a great war, then intervention is likely the best option. Maybe it wasn’t popular in Bosnia, Kuwait or Iraq, but at the end of the day, those countries are more stable today than they were before the United States intervened.