Syria: To Intervene Or Not To Intervene?

The hottest topic within the media for the last month has been Syria and what our reaction should be as the United States of America. This topic is very interesting to me because it is one of the few political debates where you don't already know where each particular congressman, or congresswoman, will side just based on their political affiliation with either the GOP or the Democratic Party. This debate represents, to me, at least, the increasingly larger debate between, not just the right versus the left, but the establishment types versus the growing grassroots, libertarian minded leaders in Washington. We saw it with drone strikes, the NSA, and now we are seeing it take place with foreign policy. Quite frankly, I love it.

Over the past year I have taken quite the interest in politics. The more I have looked into it, the more I see that our government has become very corrupt over the years, with both sides catering to special interest groups while nearly entirely abandoning the common man. Something must be done to fix it. So when I see what looks to be people in Congress actually working for the good of the common man and preserving our civil liberties, rather than working for interest groups or to further their own power within the government, it puts a smile on my face.

So now you may be wondering what civil liberties and the power of government have to do with the crisis in Syria, and whether our government should take action there or not. First, let's take a look at the actual declaration of war by the president. Under the constitution, the president does not have power to go to war without the consent of Congress. Yes, other presidents have violated this clause, however, it does not make it okay for another president to interpret the constitution in this dangerous way of doing so. The founders of our nation wanted it this way for a reason. It was a form of checks and balances. Also, they wanted Congress to decide with a majority decision, insinuating that it would then be the wants of the general public. NOT one man in Washington. When the president has this capability to declare war, he also has the greatest ability to expand the power of government because war expands the government's power at a greater rate than anything else. Throughout our history, war has been used to put regulations on free speech and, more recently, has infringed upon our fourth amendment search and seizure rights.

War, also, is a great regulator of our economy. War is very expensive, and the money to fund it must be printed in mass quantities, causing inflation of our dollar, making every dollar in our pockets worth less than before. I know what is being talked about now is being called an "unbelievably small" attack by John Kerry, but when was the last time, aside from budget cuts, we have ever seen anything "unbelievably small" come from our government? Our debt is far from small, and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were some causes of that debt. President Obama has promised us on TV that soldiers won't be on the ground, but how can he be so sure that Syria or their allies aren't going to retaliate in any way? Then are we just going to sit there and not do anything? The bottom line is we cannot afford another war.

A non interventionist foreign policy is what is best for the people of the United States of America. That should be the government's number one priority. After all, the Syrian people do not pay their salaries. I understand the moral outcries of this, but it is not the United States of America's job to be the police of the world. That ship has sailed, and we should look forward to the future in promoting peace with our foreign policy and setting a good example to those around the world. The interventionist foreign policy of the last decade has had far too many unattended consequences for the worse. It is time we listen to what our founders tried to tell us all those years ago.

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities." - George Washington, 1796, Farewell Address

Sources:

Paul, Ron. The Revolution: A Manifesto. New York, NY: Grand Central Pub., 2009. Print.

Woods, Thomas. "Liberty Classroom." Liberty Classroom. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2013.

Washington, George. "Farewell Address." George Washington's 1796 Farewell Address. 18 Sept. 2013. Address