Its unrealistic and snarky ,but considering what great evils the US may be about to unleash in Syria, i did think of a rant that goes like this:
I think its a net positive for the US and the world if the US stays completely out of distant conflicts. I realize that there are several scenarios in which US intervention may appear desirable. But they are frequently mutually incompatible and contradictory. And in almost every case (from Afghanistan to Iraq to Syria and beyond) it seems that the US has no coherent policy and people trot out one or the other justification as needed and then play bait and switch or forget their own previous stance. For example:
1. World cop. This obviously works if most of the world's powers actually agree a cop is needed and that the US is that cop. Its a great idea, but is it really what the US does well or can do?
2. Imperialism. Suppose the US is an imperialist power making a move that will HELP said imperialist power in terms of money, influence, goodwill, whatever. Well, 2 trillion in the hole, what is there to show? IN any case, since many Americans WITHIN the ruling elite are conflicted about the notion of being an imperial power its hard to see how this could ever work. A lot of officials will not be clear about what they are doing. So they will make mistakes.
3. Israel. Even this explanation is wearing thin. Suppose (for the sake of argument) that the US is actually doing all this to help Israel become X percent bigger. Does it actually help? Wouldnt it be cheaper to just buy Israel some more land.
4. Do-gooder. Well, we need not bother with that story.
So why not stay out? The only solid argument in favor of doing something is that otherwise a lot of people will become unemployed. But is there no way we can have all these people digging holes in their backyard and filling them in at 150 dollars an hour? that would be cheaper and less painful than mucking around in Syria as part of some confused imperialist plot.
Seriously.