The Syrian conflict confronts the United States with a perplexing foreign policy dilemma: either continue to police the world or mind our own business.

Morally, legally and practically, the U.S. must not be the world's policeman. It's neither in the best interest of the United States, nor in the interest of the rest of the world.

A government's sole moral obligation is to protect the rights of its own citizens-not those of civilians in other countries. "Humanitarian" intervention on behalf of foreign civilians endangers the lives and property of citizens at home, whether during the actual conflict, or afterward in the form of "blowback," a term coined by the CIA to describe the hatred and possible retaliation we incur thanks to our meddling. A quick look at our meddling in Iran in 1953 and Afghanistan in 1979-and then at the causes of 9/11-has proven the CIA right.

Intervention to protect "international norms" on chemical weapons isn't morally justified either. Before Bashar al-Assad's alleged chemical attack on Aug. 21 that killed 1,400 people, he murdered over 100,000 citizens with conventional weapons. Where the indiscriminate killing of innocents is concerned, it's morally irrelevant whether a club, machete, gun or gas is used.

Furthermore, the use of force is morally justified only on the grounds of protecting the rights of its own citizens-in other words, self-defense. That is not the case in Syria, which poses no security threat to the U.S.

Governments that violate the rights of their citizens are immoral and illegitimate, and any moral government has the right to intervene-but not a moral obligation. The moral responsibility and fault lies with the Assad regime, not with us, and though we retain the moral right to intervene-we don't have a moral obligation.

From a legal standpoint, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution vests the power to declare war with Congress-not the president. The president however, may unilaterally go to war without Congressional authorization if there's an imminent threat.

When then-Senator Barack Obama campaigned for president, he argued strongly in favor of this Constitutional approach. Once in power, however, he changed his tune: President Obama didn't seek Congressional authorization for intervention in Libya nor did he originally plan on seeking it for Syria until political pressure forced him. Nevertheless, he views it as a mere formal courtesy, making it clear that even if Congress denies authorization, he still retains the right to go ahead unilaterally. At least his predecessor sought Congressional authorization for both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Also, there are the numerous practical problems of Syrian intervention. Historically, intervening in the political affairs of other countries, however well-intended, rarely produces positive outcomes, either for the intended beneficiaries, or for us. In Iran 1953, in Cuba 1961, in Vietnam 1963, in Afghanistan 1979, in Lebanon 1982, in Iraq 2003, and in Libya 2011 are just a handful of examples.

And of course, there's the funding problem. The national debt is the single-biggest security threat to the U.S. We're $17 trillion dollars in debt and our economy is still in recession. The government's statistics on unemployment, increase in gross domestic product and inflation-7.3 percent, 2.5 percent, and 1.96 percent respectively-are dismal at best. We don't have the money for another war, let alone a global military. When we inevitably default on our debt, we won't be able to fund our police, military or our intelligence forces.

Perhaps more troubling is that any intervention on behalf of Syrian rebels would aid our sworn enemy, Al Qaeda, present among the rebel forces, according to recent reports by the New York Times, CNN, Time Magazine, among others. We're currently aiding the "moderate" rebels with weapons, but how do we distinguish a "moderate?" How can we trust the "moderates," who have joined forces with Al Qaeda against Assad, to keep those weapons out of Al Qaeda's hands?

If the rebels succeed, and Al Qaeda is an ally, there is a possibility that the perpetrators of 9/11 will replace Assad.
Syria is not a battle of good versus evil, between rebels fighting for rights and constitutionally-limited government, versus an oppressive regime. Assad murders and imprisons dissenters; Al-Qaeda conducts suicide bombings, public beheadings and executions.

9/11 should have caused Washington to rethink our foreign policy. Instead, it emboldened them to pursue the very same course of action that caused 9/11, only this time, with zealous righteousness under the guise of fighting terrorism.

Not even the last decade's failed military adventures are enough to change Washington. Thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars later, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are riddled with sectarian warfare and political corruption. Al Qaeda, meanwhile, is alive and well in various Middle Eastern and North African countries. We cannot make the world a better place with bribery and bombs: for we create more enemies, waste lives and bankrupt ourselves in the process. Instead, it is better to lead by example, through diplomacy and free trade.

Yet, despite the moral, legal and practical flaws in our interventionist foreign policy, it appears leadership in both political parties refuse to abandon this self-destructive course of action. It's high time we re-evaluate and change our interventionist foreign policy, starting with Syria.
*