The United States Should Not Intervene in Syria

These to me are some of the most critical aspects of my argument against intervention, in no real order. ----Syrian Rebels (FSA)----- Arming/Supporting the rebels is dangerous ground to say the least. It has been reported that the rebel faction is affiliated with militant Islamic Extremists. http://www.cbsnews.com... There are multiple allegations of war crimes, civilian kidnappings, murders thefts from Turkish merchants, prisoner executions, body mutilation and torture. Much of this has been confirmed by HRW (Human Rights Watch) http://www.hrw.org... So do we have any sort of confidence that FSA(Free Syrian Army) will provide a regime superior to the current one? And who is the U.S to choose one Human Rights abuser over another? The FSA is NOT a credible force worthy of American support. -----Iran and Russia------ This entire situation is reminiscent of the Cold War, although it isn't as blatant as the proxy wars between the U.S.S.R, and America, the correlation exists. Iran openly supplies and backs the Assad regime, and have recently deployed 4,000 soldiers to support the Assad Regime. It is not in American interests to increase tensions with a budding nuclear power that is already at odds with the west. http://www.independent.co.uk... Putin and Obama are now butting heads again thanks to Syria. Russia has come out in support of the Assad regime and has supplied them in the past, and now opposes intervention . Russia is locking out the Security Council and blocking the U.S"s request for the use of force in Syria. The use of force in Syria would be a breach of international law and protocol. I find it ironic that America breaks international law and protocol in order to enforce it. http://www.slate.com... Breaching international law does nothing but devalue the U.N and proliferate the colloquial idea of America as World Police. Straining already tense international relations is not something that we need either. ----Post Conflict----- If America intervenes in the Syrian conflict, we are partly culpable for whatever the outcome may be. If the Assad regime is overthrown, Syria is presented with the monumental task of state building. Although the FSA proclaims it has ideals of equality and democracy at heart, there is no guarantee that the following regime will be any different. The same cycle of liberator to dictator to civil war has been happening in Africa for decades. If America intervenes, we assume some responsibility for the product of our intervention, we cannot(shouldn"t) simply hit and run. Peace-building and state-building are some of the most complex and difficult processes in the political spectrum. Are we really ready to assume another one of those responsibilities? Especially after seeing how miserably unsuccessful our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan have been. I don"t believe that our incursions into those communities have bettered those countries. I don"t think many people do. A Syrian intervention would produce a very similar situation, likely much worse. How do we now that the instigation of liberal state building would be beneficial or even realistically possible in Syria? The placement of liberal institutions in Iraq/Afghanistan has been largely unsuccessful. ----Conclusion---- In the last 10 years, America has already gone through grueling, and largely unsuccessful democratization efforts. We do not need the financial responsibility of upholding a mock democracy while being forced to rule a post-conflict society with martial law. Why here? Why now? Genocide, murder and other mass human rights violations have been and are taking place in Somalia, The Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Sierra Leone, Mali, and Korea, many of which are comparable or worse than the Syrian Civil war. Where is the standard for Intervention? How can we justify saving Syrians over Kenyans? How can we afford another war? The national deficit is still skyrocketing. Does being world police supersede our duties to our own country? Finally, being the pacifist that I am, I believe that violence begets violence. The use of force to pacify a nation has many secondary consequences. I will leave you with the words of our own President, Barack Obama. "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." 2007