The next war?

I am torn about the Syria situation.  Let me see if I can explain how I'm looking at it.

I am not usually in favor of getting involved in other countries' affairs.  I think back on the wars we have been in during my lifetime, and I opposed most of them.  We can't be the policeman for the world.  But sometimes someone has to be.  The United Nations should be, and has been.  But it is often divided, and in this case Syria's allies Russia and China oppose any international action there.  It's hard to get the whole world, or even the Security Council, to agree on much of anything.  But sometimes there really is a need to get involved.  What would have happened if we had stayed out of World War 2, or 1?  Or what if we had gotten involved sooner- could we have saved lives?

So, we could take on the role of enforcer, doing what the UN won't.  When someone does something so awful, whether to another country or to its own people, we can't, morally, sit back and let it happen.  Can we?  Or are we saying Syria has done nothing wrong?  If we do nothing, is that the same as supporting Assad?  Or is it just letting him get away with doing awful things?

Did he really do it?  I have to say yes.  Even if the intelligence isn't rock solid, beyond a reasonable doubt, it is very strong.  And nothing of this kind can ever be absolutely proven.  Does it really matter if we can prove that Assad ordered it, and not that it was carried out by underlings on their own (or without specific orders)?

And will the US doing something- anything, from an attack to an embargo- accomplish anything?  Can we really "punish" Assad for this?  I don't think we can do anything that would make a difference.  The administration says we can hit whichever targets they're thinking of, this week, this month, whenever.  So, how important can they really be?  Clearly making a threat this far ahead lets Syria hide or move what they think we will attack.  So, what's the point?

Or maybe it's just a piece of kabuki diplomacy: making a credible threat in order to get Assad to back down.  Again, what good is that?  I don't think it will influence him.

We can't invade Syria, or even do much attacking by air.  It is a much tougher nut than Iraq (and that turned out so well...)

I guess my view comes down to: I don't want to let Assad get away with this, but we can't do anything about it.  And that is sad.  Whatever we could realistically try won't be effective, and doing nothing tells Assad and others that they can get away with this kind of thing.

Some side notes:

I was surprised by the Boehner letter.  It included some very probing questions, questions that should have been asked before Iraq and should be asked about all wars in the future.  I wonder if it's real; it shows a level of critical thought that is sorely lacking among Republicans.  Maybe it was cribbed from a Democrat.  And I think it is ridiculous that Republicans are acting like this now, after Iraq, when their attitude was "don't question us, and you're a traitor if you do."  Even more incredibly, some Republicans who were shouting for us to do something a month ago are now against any attack.  Also, Republicans should note that many liberals oppose this potential attack (and oppose many things that Obama has done.)  He is a moderate, really.  I am very tired of people calling Obama a radical, a socialist, etc.  He is not.

I had hoped Assad would be a more decent person than his dad.  Clearly not.  I was also optimistic about the new North Korean leader and have been disappointed.  One hopes that people will evolve.  But they often slide backwards.

I heard some comments about the US using chemical weapons, specifically white phosphorus anddepleted uranium.  Both are nasty, as all weapons are, but they are not the same thing as "chemical weapons" in the international treaty sense.  They are not used to kill large groups of people.  So it confuses the issue to talk about them in the same breath as sarin, mustard gas, etc.