When asked on Metronews Talkline whether he believed the United States should take military action against Syria, West Virginia 1st District Congressman David McKinley did not equivocate.
“No,” said McKinley. “We’re not the police enforcement of the world.”
McKinley isn’t alone.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll finds that only nine percent of Americans believe the U.S. should intervene militarily in Syria, despite the use of chemical weapons against civilians by the Bashar Assad regime.
But it appears as though we’re very close to doing just that. U.S. warships are already within striking distance of Syrian targets, which may include command-control centers, missile launching systems and possibly chemical weapons arsenals.
A year ago, President Obama drew a “red line” at the use of chemical weapons. That marker leaves the United States little wiggle room now that innocent people have been gassed.
If the President fails to act, the country appears weak. The “red line” will be viewed by our enemies as a feckless threat. Remember that Osama bin Laden was convinced that our ragged entry and exit from Somalia was a sign that the country had no stomach for a fight.
But if the President does authorize a military strike, will that begin a process that could ultimately drag the country into another war? The Syrian conflict is a civil and sectarian war with a variety of rebel groups fighting against the government.
It’s difficult, if not impossible, to discern the good guys from the bad guys.
Yet America, as the lone remaining world military power, tries to keep parts of the world from imploding while seeking to foster freedom and liberty. It’s a noble endeavor, but also one fraught with consequence, harshly calculated in lives and treasure.
Secretary of State John Kerry has appealed to American sensibilities by calling the chemical attack a “moral obscenity.” Most Americans would agree, but is a war-weary nation ready for another military excursion in a part of the world that appears from a distance to be hopelessly mired in historic, unresolvable disputes?
The George W. Bush administration’s claim that Saddam Hussein had WMD’s, which was the justification for the Iraq war, turned out to be wrong. Some of us who were eager for the fight did not scrutinize the evidence thoroughly.
The miscalculation left the country suspicious about foreign endeavors.
These are the times when American Presidents earn their stripes. The final order falls to the Commander-in-Chief. If President Obama decides to launch an attack, he must present a clear and convincing argument why it is in the best interest of the United States.
Despite the horrors of Syria, the recent history suggests that’s not going to be easy.