It depends on the country involved. When we have the preponderance of military power and little danger of the country we invade to respond militarily, then we do. If Russia or China is involved, it is a different story. We never attacked China during the Korean and Vietnam wars. We are allowing sanctuaries to be established in Pakistan hurting our efforts in Afghanistan. The bottom line is that our actions are circumscribed by the political realities.
We could certainly make the case that those parts of Syria completely in ISIS control were not Assad’s territory at the time, but he should have been allowed to move his forces back in once the pest control job was finished.
Sure, because it serves our interests to justify the invasion of another country. I am not against our actions in Syria to take out ISIS, but I don't try to defend it with some cockamamie rationale. ISIS is our enemy and we pursue them wherever they are--up to a point.
The Obama Administration for 7 years proclaimed that regime change was one of our objectives. There are still elements of such support within Congress and Deep State. We invaded Iraq and bombed Libya using a similar rationale. The unintended consequences are manifest. The most damaging has been the flood of millions of Muslim refugees into Europe from the Middle East who will transform the demographics of Europe forever. And it continues. There are so many other repercussions of our involvement in Syria including the reintroduction of significant Russian influence into the region and the increasing threat Iran poses to regional stability. The legacy of Obama, like that of Carter, will be felt for generations.
You’re a diplomat, does any nation have right to intervene when the nation they intervene in is in rebellion? What about France helping the US in 1779? What about the Western Powers in the Soviet Union in 1919? And I’m sure you know of dozens of such historical incidents.
We have the right of self-defense under the UN charter and international law. Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of collective or individual self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
The US has intervened many times, especially in Latin America. We have also used covert means to take down elected leaders whether it was in Iran or Vietnam. Generally, I support what we have done, but there are limits. And given the fact that we are now the world's largest debtor nation, we must use our blood and treasure wisely. Getting involved in endless civil wars will bleed us dry and weaken our ability to defend our own strategic national interests.
No one can say that Syria is not in a civil war, and that parts of it are not under control by its own government.
That could describe so many other countries around the globe. Where do we draw the line on our involvement in these countries?
Aye, we do.
We never attacked China during the Korean and Vietnam wars.
That's because it was their forces and their territory. I do concede the point that we did not attack them--although a direct attack beyond the Yalu would have been right into their strength, but General McArthur did want to strike back in diverse other places, but Truman fired him.
HOWEVER, in the case of ISIS and Syria, the Syrian territory was no longer Syrian as ISIS controlled it completely. They beat the government forces there and sent them packing. We were not (or I think we both agree SHOULD not be) fighting Assad's Syria but rather ISIS.
We are allowing sanctuaries to be established in Pakistan hurting our efforts in Afghanistan.
Tell that to the many killed by US drones in Pakistan. We do what we want in Waziristan without asking permission of Pakistan. We don't need or want boots on the ground THERE for a variety of reasons, but we don't let it be a hands-off location for the Taliban to operate from.
I am not against our actions in Syria to take out ISIS, but I don't try to defend it with some cockamamie rationale.
Absolutely!
That could describe so many other countries around the globe. Where do we draw the line on our involvement in these countries?
Just to pursue and defeat our enemies who are actively fighting us from such places, and not other reasons. In this there is no disagreement between us.