|
The U.S. is not responsible for "rescuing other nations" on its own.
The U.S. as part of a broad coalition, with a mandate from the UN, can and should, under certain circumstances and on a limited basis, act to protect innocent civilians if it is believed it would not lead to greater harm or a worse outcome.
IMO, that is the case in Libya. A UN mandate, with the support of the Arab League, against a dictator that every other Arab leader would be happy to see deposed.
And not the case in Syria. There is no UN mandate and wont be because Russia, with its close ties to Syria, would veto. Syria also has close ties to Iran, Hamas in Gaza and Hezballah in Lebanon. The potential for greater harm or a worse outcome if the US, unilaterally or with a UN mandated, were to act militarily, is far more likely than in Libya. That greater harm or worse outcome being a response by Iran/Hamas/Hezballah against Israel, leading to a much greater threat of a larger war in the Middle East or an upsurge of terrorists actions in Europe and/or the US.
|