Why the US can't respond

Submitted by Stephen Praibin (Australia), Aug 25, 2013 at 21:49

I am from Australia and your article was reproduced in The Australian newspaper.

We should not be surprised at the reluctance of the US to intercede in the Syrian crisis for these reasons:

1. The adventure into Iraq and Afghanistan has nearly sent the US government broke. This money could have been better used in providing universal medical care and fee-free college degrees for a whole generation. Yes...thats been costed.

2. In Syria, the Assad regime is supported by Russia and Iran. For the US to enter on the side of the rebels does not make sense as its really a religious war between two Islamic sects. It would also not be able to be UN sanctioned as Russia would veto it.

3. The last thing that the US wants to be seen as these days as the worlds policemen. The view of the world outside NATO and Canada, Australia and NZ is that the middle east wars have been very negative and disproportionate in response.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".