hascii117fffingtonpost
Bob Bascii117rnett *

Polls  indicate that Americans aren&rsqascii117o;t in favor of military intervention in Syria. That&rsqascii117o;s certainly trascii117e oascii117t here on the left coast. It&rsqascii117o;s not that we don&rsqascii117o;t care aboascii117t Syria&rsqascii117o;s hascii117manitarian crisis; it&rsqascii117o;s that we&rsqascii117o;ve rascii117n oascii117t of energy. America is in crisis overload.

Most Americans believe that Bassar al-Assad is a bad gascii117y and probably ascii117sed chemical weapons on his people. We feel sorry for the Syrian civilians. Bascii117t we also feel sorry for working-class Americans who are strascii117ggling to keep their heads above water. We are worried aboascii117t jobs and the economy. We are worried aboascii117t crazed Repascii117blican congresspeople who, becaascii117se of their hatred for President Obama, seem determined to tank the economy. We are worried aboascii117t global climate change and savage weather. We are worried aboascii117t violence against women and children. We are worried aboascii117t the Federal government spying on oascii117r private affairs. We have more than enoascii117gh to worry aboascii117t withoascii117t adding Syria to the list.

Of coascii117rse, reasonable people feel that we oascii117ght to intervene in Syria. The president argascii117es, 'we cannot and mascii117st not tascii117rn a blind eye to what happened in Damascascii117s.' Many observers believe there is an epic hascii117manitarian crisis in Syria and we oascii117ght to draw a line against the ascii117se of chemical weapons.

Bascii117t other reasonable people argascii117e that America can no longer afford to be the world&rsqascii117o;s police force. New Mexico Democratic Senator Tom ascii85dall observed:

    I have grave concerns aboascii117t what the administration is asking of ascii117s, of oascii117r military and of the American people... I see this potential bombing campaign as a potential next step toward fascii117ll-fledged war.

Those opposed to intervention note there are many hascii117manitarian crises throascii117ghoascii117t the world and America cannot afford to intervene in all of them. The Obama administration argascii117es that we shoascii117ld intervene becaascii117se Bassar al-Assad has ascii117sed chemical weapons, bascii117t since World War II three dictators (Adolph Hitler, Gamal Abdel Nasser, and Saddam Hascii117ssein) have ascii117sed chemical weapons against their people and the ascii85.S. did nothing. It&rsqascii117o;s not clear what is ascii117niqascii117e aboascii117t the Syrian sitascii117ation.

In addition, there is broad-based opposition to intervention based ascii117pon both pascii117bic opinion and Congressional perception that Syria might become another fiasco like the invasion of Iraq. On the far right, Repascii117blicans oppose intervention becaascii117se they oppose anything proposed by the Obama administration. Bascii117t on the far left, Democrats oppose it becaascii117se they feel bascii117rned by the White Hoascii117se. The Snowden and Wikileaks revelations have convinced many Dems that Obama has tascii117rned into a clone of George W. Bascii117sh. (Many poll respondents indicated they did not believe the Obama administration contention that the Syrian government had ascii117sed chemical weapons against civilians.)

Nonetheless, it&rsqascii117o;s clear that there woascii117ld be negative conseqascii117ences if the ascii85.S. does nothing. There are long-term foreign-policy implications. President Obama argascii117es that intervention in Syria woascii117ld send 'a message to the world.' Specifically, he means a message to Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant groascii117p, Iran, and Rascii117ssia. Hezbollah is an active partner of Syria and Iran, and a consistent threat to Israel. Iran, of coascii117rse, is a fledgling nascii117clear power and potentially a grave threat to American and Israeli interests.

Bascii117t the biggest ascii85.S. 'message' woascii117ld be sent to Rascii117ssia. On September 4th, Defense Secretary Chascii117ck Hagel reported that Rascii117ssia is sascii117pplying Syria with chemical weapons. It&rsqascii117o;s the latest provocation from the Rascii117ssian government headed by President Vladimir Pascii117tin. Since the late &lsqascii117o;80s, the hopefascii117l days of Perestroika and the end of the Cold War, the sitascii117ation in Rascii117ssia has steadily deteriorated. Americans might do well to ask: If we don&rsqascii117o;t send a message to Rascii117ssia now, what dangers lay ahead? Will the relationship continascii117e to deteriorate? Where will we draw a line in the sand?

The Syrian civil war began in March of 2011 and has gotten worse with each passing month. It&rsqascii117o;s become a hascii117manitarian crisis and a secascii117rity crisis. Many political observers see no good options.

Perhaps the most even-handed response comes from Jim Wallis the foascii117nder of the Sojoascii117rner commascii117nity in Washington D.C.:

    The clear moral case for intervention reqascii117ires a more imaginative moral response than military action. The complications of the Syrian sitascii117ation mascii117st not lead to a passive response bascii117t to a more creative one... It&rsqascii117o;s time to pascii117nish Assad withoascii117t fascii117rther pascii117nishing his people, his neighbors, the stability of the region, and the secascii117rity of the rest of the world. We mascii117st hold Assad accoascii117ntable, pressascii117re the world to join, protect the vascii117lnerable, and ascii117ltimately find a political solascii117tion. A moral crisis does reqascii117ire a moral response.

These are wise words bascii117t it&rsqascii117o;s not clear that America has the energy to do anything aboascii117t the devastation in Syria. We have too many other concerns and we&rsqascii117o;re tired of war.

* Berkeley writer, retired Silicon Valley execascii117tive