The United States is faced with another choice. Syria, which has the largest known stockpile of chemical weapons in the world, is reportedly threatening to use them against rebels seeking to overthrow the government of President Assad.
The rationale, we hear, is that any U.S. intervention would have two purposes: to secure the chemical weapons so al Qaeda terrorists could not get their hands on them, and to help topple, arrest and try Assad for war crimes.
While these may be noble objectives -- especially the objective of securing chemical weapons -- I am wary about another intervention in the snake pit of the Middle East. Every time we try something there it seems not to work out to America's advantage. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt -- all of them have produced unwelcome or problematic results. Where is the rest of the world? Why must we always go it alone? We ought to have a debate about this is Congress can pay attention while taking us over the fiscal cliff.
I'm Cal Thomas in Washington.
Publication date: December 5, 2012