A victim of the alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria. Photo: Screenshot.

My previous article, entitled “Obama’s Syria Debacle,” elicited wide-spread positive feedback and just as much criticism about the rationale behind my argument that President Obama must punish President Assad for his use of chemical weapons. I further argued that should President Obama avoid striking Syria, it would severely undermine America’s regional influence and its national security concerns, and that of its allies.

Many of those who read the article argued that “the best interests of our society and our citizens must come first to the mind of a President.” It is true that the president must concern himself with the well-being of the American people; that, however, does not mean the U.S. can or should live in isolation, as U.S. foreign involvement serves the American people as well.

The U.S.’s interest in the Middle East is of paramount importance to its economy and its national security.

Many in the Western hemisphere, including the U.S., still depend on oil; we have substantial trade interests, including the sale of military hardware to our allies to deter outside threats, and we have strategic alliances with the Gulf States along with Jordan and Israel.

This does not translate to an economic burden that the American people must shoulder or security obligations that we unnecessarily bear. The U.S. and its regional allies mutually benefit from these bilateral relations.

Only a fool would suggest that we should place boots on the ground, or that we should undertake an open-ended military campaign against the Assad regime and get America mired, once again, in a Middle East war at a terrible cost.

Many intelligence and military experts affirm that a limited strike against Assad would not precipitate retaliation by either his military or any of his allies. Israel has struck several Syrian military installations without any response, due to Assad fearing massive Israeli counter-attacks that could end his grip on power.

Another reader posed the hypothetical question, “Would you send your son into harm’s way in behalf of rebels you know so little about?” The answer is no, I would not send my son to fight in Syria, nor do I advocate that any other father should send his son or daughter to fight on behalf of the rebels.

I have heard many conspiracy theories, but this one tops them all. This reader seems so sadly detached from reality. In fact, Israel was happy with Assad the father and now his son, as both maintained and lived up to the 1974 disengagement agreement with Israel without any violent incidents along their shared borders.

If the Israelis had their druthers, they would have liked to see Assad continue to rule Syria, as the status of no peace and no war is exactly what they prefer. Israel will gain nothing if Syria disintegrates, and certainly dreads the prospect of Iran and Hezbollah becoming the dominant factor in the Levant.

It is true the U.S. has supported authoritarian regimes around the world. That said, we cannot be oblivious to the massacre of thousands of men, women, and children in the face of the United Nations Security Council’s paralysis (thanks to the Russians and the Chinese), and at the same time claim to walk the moral high ground.

Punishing Assad by striking some of his military installations and degrading his air force while providing the rebels with the weapons they need, is, and remains, what is necessary to accelerate his demise.

Should the continuing civil war be left unchecked, it will inevitably spill over to the rest of the region with horrific regional ramifications. The U.S. simply cannot afford to be passive when the stakes are so high and when America’s rivals, if not enemies – Russia and Iran in particular – are lying in wait to exploit any display of American weakness.

Another reader also said that my argument is weak because I “blame Obama for everything.” No, my argument is that as the commander-in-chief, the president must occasionally take certain calculated risks when such risks serve America best.

The president has the prerogative to take certain limited military action when deemed necessary without consultation with Congress. Many former presidents have done so, including Clinton in Kosovo and Reagan in Grenada.

The United States does not want its regional allies to act on their own in dealing with conflicts simply because they do not trust America to do the right thing. Like it or not, the U.S. is the Global Power; it has global responsibility, both by design and circumstances.

Certainly not everyone believes that the United States is committed to human rights and that we, as a nation, seek to improve the lives of people far and near. As another reader put it: “I know you know your history, but I am curious as to where the United States acts or have acted throughout its entire history for the ‘betterment of people elsewhere.’  And to this day, we only act when it serves the betterment of those who are already sitting quite well.”
I certainly do not believe that the United States always acts out of altruism, and that the betterment of humanity is not necessarily first on its priority list. America is far from being perfect, but I challenge anyone to show me another country, large or small, that has the capacity, the means, the willingness, and the values to promote the betterment of people anywhere.

No, this is not a note of patriotism. Many of our worst enemies who condemn the U.S. day in and day out send their kids to study in the U.S., learn about its culture and way of life, and experience what America has to offer.