As the violence continues to escalate and the defections of top officials from the Syrian government continue to mount, the United States is sooner or later going to be called on to make a choice of whether or not to support the rebels. Many powerful people in Washington, including Senator John McCain, have already called for U.S. involvement. The United States has just come out of a long and tiresome conflict in Iraq and is still mired in turmoil in Afghanistan. Is it really the place for the United States to get involved in yet another conflict?
While the U.S. has long been viewed as the world’s police, perhaps it is about time that view is shed. There are many domestic problems here that need fixing. At this point in time it is debatable whether the U.S. truly has sufficient resources to wage another “war of freedom”. Although such an isolationist view may be perceived by some as being un-American, perhaps the time has come where the U.S. needs to put itself first instead of concerning itself with everyone else. If the rest of the world desires to intervene, there is no reason why the U.S. should oppose them. My only contention is that the U.S. does not need to lead the charge.
Furthermore, if the U.S. was to get involved, do we really know who we are supporting? From what I have read, it appears that many of the Syrian rebel leaders may have links to terrorist organizations. If there is one thing that the U.S. should not be doing, it is putting terrorists in positions of power over a nation. Do you think that the U.S. should get involved in Syria? Would an isolationist stance be beneficial to the U.S.?