Which countries are actually going to be lobbing bombs into Syria, and which are sitting on the sidelines hoping we'll take care of their border problems? Not that it matters. If it's important to Turkey, Israel, SA and France to bomb Syria because it serves their national interest to do so, let them do it. In my opinion, it does not serve the USA's national interest, and even Obama claims that we'd only be doing in because in the course of slaughtering 100,000 Syrians, Assad slaughtered 1400 of them with chemical weapons. Well if the UN the majority of our European allies don't want to be bothered, then neither should we.....Except for France, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc, etc....
You seem to be utilizing a highly selective concept of what qualifies as "allied support".
I feel like Charlie Brown... all I hear is "Whah, Whah, Whah." We are not going to agree on this. America cannot fix what is broken in the ME. They either fix it themselves or die trying.Actually we have huge national interests in Syria. Not only is it Iran's chief ally in the region, but it is responsible for enabling the deaths of thousands of American servicemembers. It's provides aid to Hezbollah and (until recently) al-Qaeda, has WMD production and stockpiles, and has the ability to destabilize a high-impact portion of the globe. It also serves as Iran's early-warning network and second-strike capability in the event of a move against a nuclear program. Geography and politics both require that we maintain our interests in the middle east, and Syria is a big piece of that.
Then I'm quite willing to let something else happen, because as I've said, it is not our job to fix what is broken in the ME.Yup. Unfortunately, doing nothing will produce significant repercussions as well. As Christopher Hitchens put it to well: "Nonintervention does not mean that nothing happens. It means that something else happens."