With new evidence that the Syrian government may be using chemical weapons against rebel groups, the civil war — which began in 2011 as part of a broader set of uprisings in the Arab world — has reached another critical point. In response to these developments, Senator John McCain, on NBC’s Meet the Press, urged the Obama administration to act on Syria: “Be prepared with an international force to go in and secure these stocks of chemical, and perhaps biological, weapons.”
But any call for U.S. intervention implies an assumption of superiority based on the idea of American exceptionalism. Many argue that the United States is not superior, and that we have no right to meddle in other countries’ affairs. The American government has jurisdiction over its 50 states and territories, not the world.
Another reason not to intervene in Syria is the number of social issues that currently plague our own country. Americans endure significant societal hardships, including a staggering 7.6 percent unemployment rate and an onerous debt burden. There are thousands of students who cannot afford tuition for college or housing, yet our military defense budget is approximately $1 trillion. Instead of perpetuating inefficient budget allocations, we should improve social issues by reallocating funds to stimulate our economy and ultimately serve Americans.
Furthermore, the idea of intervention in the best interests of the local population has undoubtedly been tarnished by the Iraq war. In fact, even the idea of humanitarian intervention seems to have been rejected by the broader international community, as well as war-weary Americans. Nevertheless, it may still be morally justifiable to intervene under unique circumstances, especially when there is a strong local coalition that wants U.S. support, as in Syria.
For two years, the American government has done everything it can to avoid intervening in Syria. Americans have no appetite for more military involvement abroad after the past two decade-long wars, but chemical weapons, and the threat they pose to the international community, raise the stakes for continued inaction, particularly in light of escalating casualty rates.
Thus, there is an inescapable and pernicious hazard that accompanies whatever decision the U.S. government chooses to make, and the dilemma centers around the value of American lives relative to Syrian lives. As a nation that has claimed to be the flagbearer of democracy for over 200 years, the United States and its ideals are now being put to the test. What is incontestable is that lives will be lost regardless of the path we choose to pursue, but nothing will improve if we remain idle.
A version of this article appeared in the Monday, April 29 print edition. Email the WSN Editorial Board at [email protected].
Asian • May 1, 2013 at 3:53 pm
Wow, nice article, forthright and direct. After the ones written proudly praising North Korea and Iran, I’m surprised the newspaper heads wrote something like this.
Arafat • Apr 29, 2013 at 9:12 am
I’ve got a novel idea. Let’s do nothing. Let the Muslims deal
with their own problems for a change. Let’s let countries like Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Kuwait with their endless ocean of money and Western-bought armaments
figure it out instead. Surely they – being practitioners of the religion of
compassion and peace – will step right up to the plate in our stead.
OK, you caught me there. You knew I was kidding! You knew what I know which is
that there is no answer to these Islamic cesspools. Whatever we do will be
discredited and if we do nothing Syria will simply become the latest Islamic country to spiral into a downward bloody spiral thanks to Islam’s insidious core tenets.
Asian • May 1, 2013 at 3:55 pm
You need to learn more about Syria. The Shi’a elite controlling a Sunni majority nation for decades is not a just one.
Assad treated minorities brutally even before the rebellion. A friend of Iran and Russia is no friend of the West.
Arafat • May 1, 2013 at 4:13 pm
Asian, your complaint about Syria is not atypical of other Islamic states. Before the most recent Iraq war Saddam Hussein (a Sunni) controlled a Shiite majority state, and did so ruthlessly.
When we decided his endless belicose words and actions were no longer tolerable and invaded Iraq in an attempt to bring a more democratic regime to power we were successful in doing so. Now Iraq is run by an idiot Shiite leader, a man aligned with Iran, but more representative of the majority Iraqi person. Meanwhile by every measure Iraq is just as bad off under a shiite as under a Sunni leader.
Of course in Bahrain we have a similar situation where the elite Sunnis violently repress the Shiite majority,
And then we have the farcical Arab Spring which saw the ouster of several dictators in favor of popularly elected leaders – which it turns out are all Islamists. And, of course, in each of these countries the Arab Spring has been followed by a hellish Arab Winter.
You can’t win when it comes to Islam. You just can’t win. So let’s keep our noses out of their affairs and let them sort it out on their own.