Yorktown left a bitter taste in the mouth of the British ruling elite. It was because of memories of losing America that they conceded self-government so easily and quickly to Canada (the Durham Report). And while they continued to be aggressive imperialists, for much of the 19th century the British preferred "indirect rule"; that is, selecting a native puppet ruler who would be compliant and helpful. This usually worked pretty well. But every now and then, the natives grew restless and then something had to be done. For an example of what the British did, how it worked out for them, and what all this has to do with Syria, follow me below the orange croissant.
The Egyptian Khedive--nominally subject to the Ottoman Sultan--by the 1840s had become a puppet of the British and French. The semi-independence of the Khedive depended on European fleets. Khedive after Khedive borrowed vast sums from Europeans, again mainly from the British and the French. Some of this borrowing was for lavish personal consumption, but more often than not it was in futile attempts to modernize the country and the armed forces. Europeans, anxious to make sure bondholders were paid back, insisted that the Khedive should permit European accountants and so forth to run Egyptian finances. Everything went smoothly.
Then a nationalist revolution deposed the Khedive in 1878. This posed a problem for the British and French because of the bondholders, but also because of the brand new Suez Canal. The Canal had suddenly and radically altered the whole global strategic situation. Egypt, previously a backwater, was now sitting at the very nexus of the British Empire, directly on the route that connected Britain to India.
William Gladstone, the iconic leader of the Liberal Party, was Prime Minister of a reform-minded government eager to tackle all sorts of domestic issues (not least of which was what to do about the Irish). His government wanted above all to keep taxes low and government spending--especially on the military--low. Most Liberals were, if not pacifists, at least hostile to military adventure. Liberals like Richard Cobden hoped that free trade, laissez faire economics, and industrialization would ultimately bring peace and prosperity for everyone. So what to do about Egypt?
The classic answer--for the British as for all of the Great Powers in the 19th century and early 20th century (including the U.S.) was to send a warship to the area and lob several hundred explosive shells into a major city. The idea was that this would bring the little foreign buggers to their senses. And, in all honesty, it sometimes did work. Well, not if you were one of the poor bastards the shells landed on, but it sometimes achieved the goals of the Great Power firing the shells.
This time, however, it infuriated the local population of Alexandria. Some Europeans were arrogant enough or stupid enough to go shopping after the shells stopped falling and were promptly killed. When news of this atrocity--English women killed by little brown people--reached London, Gladstone's Cabinet knew they had to do something. Public opinion demanded it. The national honor demanded it. If you let these damned Egyptians kill Europeans and get away with it, if you let this moral outrage stand, what would be next? Why you might see Chinamen shooting British opium salesmen.
So, they sent an army and restored the proper Khedive back as the rightful puppet. (All this took a few years. Things moved slowly in those days). Unfortunately, it became obvious that unless the Brits kept an army in Egypt permanently, the locals would overthrow the Khedive again, and the Canal would be jeopardized again, and the Empire in danger....
The French objected, and starting grabbing pieces of Africa for themselves. Then other European powers feared being left out and began themselves. Then the Sudanese revolted against the Egyptians, so a British Army was needed in the Sudan...
The whole miserable, brutal, nightmarish saga of European rule in Africa---read what the Belgians did in the Congo if you want to be disgusted by crimes against humanity--all touched off by the desire to restore law, order, and British bondholder interest payments by shooting a few shells. Now, to be fair it is possible that European imperialism in the late 19th century would have happened regardless. Perhaps European economic or geostrategic considerations would have inevitably led to the horrors that descended upon Africa. But we can't know because we can't rerun history to see.
And Syria? Well, I am troubled by those voices loudly--and in one diary last night, drunkenly--howling to let the missiles fly. Perhaps in the final analysis shooting cruise missiles at Syrian targets will be the right thing to do. Gunboat diplomacy did sometimes work. (see Roosevelt, Theodore, creation of Panama) Perhaps not shooting missiles would be viewed by the future as an act of immorality, of cowardice in the face of a crime against humanity. But the louder and the more insistent the call to shoot the missiles grows, the more vigorous and belligerent the dismissal of doubts about this act, the more doubts I have. You can do the wrong thing for the right reasons, so it is a good idea to be really, really double sure your reasons are right before you push the button.