It's certainly true if we regain energy independence (which the president and his allies are fighting in every way they know how) we'd have much less interest in the Middle East. Recall the Carter Doctrine: The Middle East is in the vital national security interests of the United States. Although 9/11 did inject a slightly different dynamic into the discussion.
Personally I enjoyed it when we lobbed a cruise missile into Slobodon Milosovic's rumpus room. And seeing Hussein dangling from the end of a rope was endlessly entertaining. No more live coverage of him firing a rifle, wearing that doofus Tyrolean hat, from a balcony. We didn't ask to be the hyper-power, but we are. And even though we can't or shouldn't involve ourselves in every tragedy where massive numbers of innocents are being slaughtered, that doesn't mean we shouldn't ever intervene. And while "international coalitions" are a useful cover for the United States doing whatever it wishes, I'm not overly concerned with whether we have UN approval. Or a green light from Andorra.
We should put our national interests above all other concerns. Period. Our president has said Assad's use of WMD crosses a Red Line, which we won't permit. Should we do nothing? We've also said Iran going nuclear will cross another Red Line. Should we likewise do nothing? Just before the bullet slammed into his face, I'm guessing Bin Laden had reassessed the notion of us being the "weak horse." I favor disabusing as many of these Islamist a*sholes as possible of that delusion.
) is only to go after the two Assads and the high-level military leaders, the ones who ordered the chemical weapons attack. Which of course means this is the one course of action you can be sure we won't follow.
