Why should the USA intervene? Assad is killing Muslims - what is the downside to that?
Its about foreign policy doctrine and you have to look at 3 groups.
NeoCon Republicans and Liberal Interventionist Democrats are Idealists in that they both advocate for humanitarianism and nation building in our foreign policy. But those two differ in that the Liberal Interventionists are multilateralists and the NeoCons are unilateralists.
The Realists are that, realists. Humanitarianism and nation building should not be part of US foreign policy. The US should intervene only if it is in the US's interest. And if the US does intervene it should conform to the Powell Doctrine, which identifies all the criteria that should be met before the US intervenes.
So you need to look at this in regard to both Libya and Syria.
In Libya, the NeoCon Rebublicans immediately began calling for Obama to intervene and the Realists told Obama not to intervene. Then the Liberal Interventionist Dems organized a multilateral agreement with other nations and Obama intervened. The NeoCons praised Obama for intervening but criticised him for waiting on the multilateral agreement and "leading from behind". Some of the hardcore NeoCons like John Bolton criticized Obama for not putting boots on the ground in Libya.
Now, in Syria, the NeoCons are calling to intervene unilaterally because there is no multilateral agreement but the Liberal Interventionists are not on board
Excellent post!
The internal affairs of another country are usually no concern of ours. What affect on OUR national security does Assad killing a few rebels have? Absolutely none! In fact, supporting the rebels is contrary to our national security. The last thing we need is yet another islamic terrorist nation in the mideast.