Obama is right to hit Assad regime
Virtually everyone, including lawmakers from both the Democrats and the Republicans, agrees that the U.S., and by extension the West, has little self-interest in Syria. That opinion is central to the arguments of those — the majority, apparently — who argue against U.S. military strikes against the Assad regime over its use of illegal chemical weapons.
They are right. But take a look at the photograph to the right of seven-year-old Ahmad Jabir, who was injured when Syrian government forces shelled his town. Or go online and have a look at videos of Syrian civilians shaking on their hospital beds and frothing at the mouth, victims almost certainly of an attack with the nerve-gas sarin.
What should we say, what should our response be, to these innocent victims of the Assad regime? Ignore them as we did at first to the early victims of the Nazis or the war crimes in Serbia? Many say they are tired of the U.S. acting like the “world’s policeman,” Americans in particular. But if no one else will act, why shouldn’t America, the world’s largest democracy, take on the burden? Some say there should be an international diplomatic response by the U.N., but that would be toothless and the bodies would continue to pile up.
No one wants another boots-on-the-ground war, but that is not what is being proposed by U.S. President Barack Obama. He wants to strike Syrian military targets to reduce Assad’s ability to wage war on his own people and to denounce his use of weapons of mass destruction. It’s a rotten job, but somebody’s got to do it because it’s the right thing to do.