On Tuesday night, President Obama will address Americans regarding the issue of whether or not the United States will become militarily involved in Syria. While he claims he only wants to “send a signal to rogue nations,” he should reflect on his former criticisms as a senator during the Bush administration’s involvement in the Middle East.

Senator Obama differs greatly from President Obama.

President Obama bolsters the trend of U.S. interventionist habits, while the Senator Obama did not even vote for the Iraq war.

There is a prevailing belief among the American public that the First and Second World Wars were noble endeavors. Since Vietnam though, the United States has become overly involved overseas. The current foreign policy of the United States can best be described in one word—narcissistic. The consensus that has emerged in the past half century is that every major world event should and needs to involve U.S. intervention.

Even though there has been disagreement in the past about how the United States should act, we ultimately intervene time and time again.

Now it is time to ask ourselves, if the Syrian civil war didn’t warrant our involvement before, then why should it warrant our involvement now that chemical weapons have been employed? Atrocities were certainly occurring in Syria before Assad started using chemical weapons, and using such a distinction to justify U.S. involvement is arbitrary.

It would be misleading to suggest that the situation in Syria is entirely independent of U.S. interests abroad, but it’s dangerous to assume that just because the situation affects our interests, then that is enough justification for us to engage militarily in Syria.

U.S. foreign policy has taken a narcissistic turn over the past half century as we’ve increasingly considered international events in light of how they relate to us, rather than simply considering them at face value.

Not every world event should be about the United States. The legacy of the U.S. military as world policemen is not one that should be embraced any longer.
Whether it’s Egyptians fighting Egyptians, or Syrians fighting Syrians, the idea that America should and must be a central player in these struggles is dangerous, costly and makes us unpopular in many parts of the world.

If politicians had learned anything related to foreign policy during the Bush administration, it should have been the limited effectiveness of American military might.

Projecting power abroad is a crucial element to any nation striving to be viewed as a superpower, but in most cases, there are far safer and more effective projections of power than military involvement. Obama knows that becoming involved in Syria could be a slippery slope and lead to greater instability in the region, yet he seems unwilling to stand up to the foreign policy consensus.

Being part of the generation that grew up with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, college students should know as well as anyone that what once appears to be a short-term struggle can develop into a decade-long war with no clear victory.

The ultimate aim of any nation’s foreign policy should be to better protect the citizens of that country, and as Americans, going to war in Syria does not better protect us.

The United States is the most powerful country in the world, and often times we tend to think that we always have the ability to help in world conflicts, but the reality is, unfortunately, we often times do more harm than good. We don’t need any more blowback.

Ultimately, Obama needs to remember what attributes made him popular to non-interventionists as a senator, instead of giving in to outside pressure to intervene in Syria as president.

Ethan Demers is a senior political science and history major. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at [email protected].

Published on September 10, 2013 at 1:14 am