U.S. presence in the Middle East is necessary

Chris Ware

The past few weeks has called many to re-observe how the government should react to tyrannical despots who kill their own citizens unjustly. Does the United States in fact have an obligation to intervene in situations where a leader of a sovereign nation is killing his or her own citizens?

Freedom from tyranny by government is the foundation of the U.S. Constitution, and the founders deliberately wrote the Constitution in a way to keep the people protected from an intrusive and over-bearing government. So whenever we see people from another country suffer under the type of government our Constitution protects us from, we begin to feel uneasy about the situation. For the most part, we try to figure out a way to help those in need.

Truthfully, I wish the United States could be the country to intervene on behalf of anyone around the world who fall victim to despots, but that is not a job for just one country to have. The world is in a very tumultuous period and we could be close to a tipping point, and America can no longer be the only country acting in military operations around the world because of this. I believe a key concept to combatting situations, particularly like Syria, without getting involved in a long war is contingent upon the idea that there is more than one country carrying out military operations against the despot. If the despots see that the majority of the world will not tolerate their actions, such situations similar to what is happening with Syria would be less likely to happen.

America needs to continue to curb its presence in the Middle East. We have yet to fully recover from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s time for another country to at least assist the United States in trying to keep the world a more peaceful place. Making the world a more stable place is not the job of just one country, and other countries around the world need to accept the responsibility of keeping peace just as the United States always has done.