By now, the atrocities committed by President Bashar al-Assad, the ruthless leader of Syria, are well known to the international community. Reports of chemical weapons being used by the oppressive regime are flooding in, and the pressure is rising for America, and the world, to intervene. But as barbaric as the al-Assad regime is, the U.S. must sit this conflict out.
President Barack Obama has issued various warnings against al-Assad and vowed to take action if the use of chemical weapons against civilians is affirmed, and rightfully so. The world cannot just spectate while thousands are being murdered.
The problem here is there is no concrete proof of chemical use against the rebels by al-Assad’s military. The country is witnessing a full-blown civil war. Underground websites show the uncensored, horrifying instances of people being murdered by soldiers with no regard to any law. It is as nasty as it gets, but the U.S. cannot afford to involve itself in another civil war, especially not in an Islamic country.
Many in the Middle East still see the U.S. as evil and would rather have ruthless religious groups rule their countries than any power supported by the United States. President Mohamed Morsi of Egypt, a known Muslim Brotherhood member, has described Israel and the Jewish people as “Zionist pigs and bloodsuckers.” It is no secret that the U.S. supports Israel, so any hatred of Jewish people and Israel, no matter how irrational, is likely to fuel anti-U.S. sentiments even if our intentions are noble.
Groups like Hezbollah have said that they would further escalate their involvement in Syria if a fear of it falling prey to U.S. or Israeli interest was present. Hezbollah’s methods of dealing with conflict are far from peaceful; it’s only their way, no highway.
People are being murdered, and something must be done, but not by the U.S. We can’t afford to involve ourselves in another country’s business when we are bankrupt. We already have our bases in more than 130 countries. We are occupiers; no wonder those abroad see us that way.
We’ve heard the “weapons of mass destruction” line before, with mixed results. A civil war is just that — an internal conflict, one that can cause decade-long wars that accomplish nothing. If anything, a NATO-led, Libyan-fashioned intervention should be considered, saving U.S. the heavy lifting.
