I suspect that many here have already come to a conclusion about the action—or inaction—that the United States should take with regards to Syria. From what I can tell, many have weighed the evidence and found it lacking, or looked at the potential consequences and found them repulsive, or examined your own hearts and found no way to reconcile your beliefs with the proposed action. Or maybe you've just looked at your hands and found the scars from the Iraq debacle are still too fresh and too painful to countenance anything that smacks of the same strike-now reasoning.
Good for you. But I have to say that, while I envy your clarity and won't make an effort to shake it, I don't share it.
I'm haunted by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Not because of any religious implications, but for the very reason that the story still resonates two millennia after it was first told. In the story, a man who is beaten by robbers and left for dead in a ditch, is passed by two powerful figures who turn away in distaste, too busy and too unsympathetic to help. Finally a Samaritan, a figure of social disdain for the audience of the story, stops and the effort to care for the beaten man. We understand at once which characters in this story have behaved in a moral fashion.
Of course, what we're being asked to do here is something quite different. If the Samaritan had left the man in the ditch, but tracked down the thieves in hopes of stopping them from hurting another traveler, would we still remember the story? Would it carry the same moral force? I don't know.
I know a lot of people are upset that we should consider taking action against the regime in Syria, instead of leaving it to someone else, but... I'm not there. If this is right, then we should act. Because we can. We are responsible, because we are capable, perhaps uniquely so. Without sounding too trite (and all too aware of the comic book catchphrase) power carries responsibilities. I'm much more torn over the "should we?" than the "why us?" Failing to act against an evil when you can act is immoral, so long as you're sure your action will make things better.
Convince me, Mr. President. Convince me that we are the ones who can do something to prevent future atrocities.
On the other hand, I'm very concerned over the idea that our intervention would do more harm than good. Striking wildly against every perception of evil isn't morality, it's rabid insanity. Military fundamentalism. It leads to mistakes that cost lives (even hundreds of thousands of lives) and which damage the ability to act when the need is great. You can go after the thieves, but if you start attacking random suspects—especially if that attack comes in the form of bombs, missiles, and drones applying deadly force at a distance with no little loss of life to those who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time—you shouldn't be surprised that no one cheers your actions.
Even so, past mistates are no excuse for future inaction. Sure, repeating the same action over and over again and expecting different results may be madness, but failing to act because past efforts came to nought (or worse) is surrender. The only sensible approach is to act, or not act, in the light of the knowledge gained through both success and failure. We've had plenty of failure lately. I'd like to think it's taught us caution, but not caution so strong that it's crippling. Sins of omission are sins nonetheless.
Convince me, Mr. President. Convince me that our actions are both justified and necessary.
There's been a lot of talk that we shouldn't help the rebels because not all of them are our friends, and some of them are undoubtably our enemies. Frankly, I'm not bothered by that. Any villain can act out of self interest. Assad is happy to help those who support him and punish those in opposition. If your purpose is to act out of compassion, you have to do so even when the recipients may be ungrateful. Maybe even especially so.
If we're to act, then let us act for the good, rather than for that shadowy, ever malleable "national interest." I'm a great believer that America's real interest is best served when its power is applied to taking a moral stand, regardless of the political cost. National interest is just another way of saying self interest, and not even enlightened self interest. It's an invocation of the meanest sort of moral cowardice.
Convince me, Mr. President. Convince me that we are considering action not out of any political calculation or desire to forward our own interests, except that our interests lie with the cause of protecting those in danger.
Convince me... because right now, I'm not convinced. Right now I'm not sure we're doing the right thing, or doing it for the right reason. Right now I suspect that we're more inclined to save face than save lives. Right now I'm not sure we're the Samaritan in this story. And it's going to take a lot of convincing.