Isolation or Intervention?

When I first read that President Obama was going to await Congress' approval before taking military action in Syria, I was impressed and pleased that the Constitution was being followed. But then, I thought again. I wonder: Is President Obama just trying to save his own skin? If this airstrike ends up causing another war in the Middle East, he can easily say he took the necessary steps and cannot take all of the blame. In other words, the president may not have the most innocent intentions, but he is being very wise politically. 

Here is my problem: WHY do we have to get involved in these foreign affairs?

If you are unaware of what has been going on lately, here is a little recap:
The Syrian government has responded to rebels by filling warheads with deadly chemicals and targeting areas of civil conflict. Unfortunately, these chemical weapons had more civilian casualties than is morally acceptable. Because this reached international attention, being that it is the 21st century, the Obama administration has responded. 

According to a Washington Post article: 

"Those records and intercepts would become the core of the Obama administration's evidentiary case linking the Syrian government to what one official called an 'an indiscriminate, inconceivable horror' -- the use of outlawed toxins to kill nearly 1,500 civilians, including 426 children."

So, this would evidently explain why the U.S. is now considering striking the Syrian government for the use of outlawed toxins and engaging in the murder of so many of its people. The Syrian government was apparently horrified by the number of civilian deaths and tried to cover up the act. Unfortunately, that isn't an easy task.

Graphic from the Washington Post

Now, I understand that the United States has been a key player in getting involved in foreign affairs when morality is an issue, but can we really use our military every time a foreign nation is engaging in questionable activity? And if that is supposed to be the case every single time, where is the U.S. in South America, Africa or some Asian countries?

For one, I am a fan of U.S.'s previous notion of isolationism. Isolationism was the idea, during the World War era, that the U.S. was different from European nations and believed in resolving conflicts without war. Is this no longer considered?

We have to consider the fact that once the U.S. makes the decision to get our military involved, we are engaging in the possibility of angering our allies, enemies and have the even scarier possibility of inspiring new enemies.

Now, I chose this topic of discussion because of an NPR article I read today that brought up some very excellent points.

During the Cold War, the U.S. did not intervene as often because there was always the potentiality of provoking a full-fledged nuclear war with the USSR. Now that the Cold War is over, the U.S. has no immediate threats that would prevent any sort of action. Because of this, we have apparently engaged in several military interventions since the Gulf War in the early 1990s. 

Jim Dubik, a retired Army lieutenant general now with the Institute for the Study of War in Washington, said:

"Since the Cold War ended, there's been a vacuum as to what international strategic framework will take its place. That debate is still going on and without a recognized framework, it's a more Hobbesian world." 

I was incredibly intrigued with this quote because I have only recently learned about Thomas Hobbes, the 17th century philosopher who discussed the modern ideas of warfare. By stating that this is a "more Hobbesian world," Dubik was saying that we are in a world where the state of nature is the state of war. Essentially, all is fair in love and war comes to mind. If human nature is bellicose, then peace cannot be guaranteed. This, in turn, means that there always a potential for war and that, then, makes war justifiable in all cases.

I could not disagree more. I think that humans innately have some sense of morality and politics should be domestic-oriented and not international. In a perfect world, the US could be the international peacekeeper, ensuring that every person is safe and has rights, but because the US cannot be everywhere at once, should we be anywhere at all?

Also, what makes one country more worthy of US intervention? Are the motives of the US government always pure?

I would hope so, but I cannot be sure. Tell me what you think in the comments below!

Articles discussed:
NPR Article: Why Are Presidents Calling On The Military So Often?
Washington Post Article: More than 1,400 killed in Syrian chemical weapons attack, U.S. says