U.S. Military Intervention

You are right, we need to look at the bigger picture in this debate. However, I still do not see how "it would likely be the same result [if we had stayed in Vietnam]." That just doesn't seem to make sense. If we had stayed and finished off the North Vietnamese Communist regime, they still would have taken over and massacared the Cambodians and Sout Vietnmese? Not very likely. "...it's not in our interest to go abroad and get ourselves involved in more."This appears to be your main premise for your following arguments. I would like to begin by pointing out some simple and obvious examples of why this is a very unwise course of action.First off, the world wars. I mentioned it before, but look what finally made the US enter these wars. When we were attacked. "...the U.S. should not enter, because there forces have done nothing to provoke the U.S. into fighting a war." You say we should not enter a conflict until we are provoked. Tell that to the families of the 1,500 who died on the Lusitania. Or the relatives of the 4,000 casualties in Pearl Harbor. Or the children of the 3,000 killed on September 11th [1,2,3]. My point is, if we wait long enough, we will eventually be forced or 'provoked' into entering the conflict anyway, so why not take action on our own terms instead of those of our enemies?On to Syria. According to former US assistant secretary of state, James Dobbins, "The situation today in Syria bears considerable resemblance to that of a year ago in Libya" [4].In both cases an aroused population is seeking to oust a long established dictator, and is being savagely repressed as a result. In both cases, rather remarkably, the rest of the Arab world, including a number of equally authoritarian regimes, has sided with the popular uprising and called for the overthrow of the existing regime. In both cases, some level of external intervention will probably be needed to ensure such an outcome.Here are some powerful reasons that the US should intervene in the Syrian conflict:American intervention would diminish Iran’s influence in the Arab world. Iran has showered aid on Syria and even sent advisers from its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps to assist Mr. Assad. Iran knows that if his regime fell, it would lose its most important base in the Arab world and a supply line to pro-Iranian Hezbollah militants in Lebanon.Second, a more muscular American policy could keep the conflict from spreading. Syria’s civil war has already exacerbated sectarian strife in Lebanon and Iraq — and the Turkish government has accused Mr. Assad of supporting Kurdish militants in order to inflame tensions between the Kurds and Turkey.Third, by training and equipping reliable partners within Syria’s internal opposition, America could create a bulwark against extremist groups like Al Qaeda, which are present and are seeking safe havens in ungoverned corners of Syria.Fourth, American leadership on Syria could improve relations with key allies like Turkey and Qatar. Both the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and his Qatari counterpart have criticized the United States for offering only nonlethal support to the rebellion. Both favor establishing a no-fly zone and “safe zones” for civilians in Syrian territory.Finally, from an American standpoint, the United States has much to gain from regime change—even more in Syria than in Libya.Ultimately, Western powers have no choice but to intervene. Until outside forces compel them to stop, the Assads will continue their murderous rampage with utter impunity. Negotiations have failed, sanctions have failed.Our closest friends in the region — including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, Qatar and Israel — would like to see Assad toppled as soon as possible. France and Britain could also be counted on to help, as they did in Libya. Yet none of them will move until America does.As you may have heard, the Syrian rebels have turned to Al-Queda and other terrorist organizations for aid. Can you think of a reason why this is? It is because the US failed to aid them in their struggle for freedom, so they turned to someone else for that help, which happened to be Al-Queda.Ok, now for my question to you: You have not adressed my example of how a strong foreign policy can actullay bring peace to the world. Again, look at Ronald Reagan's presidency. He inherited a mess. And he turned it into a beautiful example of how a strong foreign policy really works.Please give your thoughts and rebuttals on these important issues.1- http://en.wikipedia.org...2- http://www.history.com...3- http://www.history.com...4-http://www.usnews.com...5-http://www.nytimes.com...