Irish short-story writer Seán Ó Faoláin wondered, “If X and Y want to cut one another's throats over Z, why on Earth must people who do not believe in the ideas propounded by either X, Y, or Z have ‘to choose between them?’”
I reject that premise - that the only (sufficient) reason people might have for choosing between other parties would be believing in the ideas propounded by one (or more) of them. There are many other reasons why someone might choose between other parties, for instance their respective behaviors and actions. I don't have to agree with the ideas of a victim in order to choose their side in a conflict with a bully. Essential humanity tells me to, under some circumstances, stand up for people that are being treated improperly by others.
So, I'd ask a different question: At what point do we intervene in the affairs of others, at risk and cost to ourselves, when we believe victimization is in play? At what point does it - improper, or unjustified, or abhorrent treatment - become unacceptable?
I'm not suggesting we're at that point with regard to Syria. I really don't have a strong sense either way, I just don't know enough detail about the situation. But it seems to me that making good decisions depends a great deal on asking the right questions. And to me the right question is: As humans, what kind of treatment of others - others that we may have little connection to and little need of - are we willing to accept and what kind of treatment do we feel compelled to step in to stop (as ongoing or as future potential)?
My general nature as regards strangers is to mind my own business, it's not my place to intervene - unwanted and uninvited - in the affairs of others. But, sitting in a restaurant or wandering around some other public place, there is some point at which I would inject myself into strangers' situations. I'm not sure I could articulate the criteria, it may be one of those 'I know it when I see it' things. But, for instance, I would not sit still in a restaurant if I saw a man punching the woman he was sitting with in the face. I don't know a thing about them. Their lives are, in almost all regards, none of my business. Injecting myself into their immediate situation may come at a cost to myself, it would surely carry some (likely largely unknown) risk. But, being a human and experiencing some basic level of generic empathy for other humans, I'd feel I had to step in and do something. Not because I agreed with the woman, not because I thought my own interests (other than that basic humanity) might be impacted by what was going on, not because the man and woman are something more than strangers to me, I'd (hopefully) step in because at some point that's what humans do - they stand up to bullies, to rapists, to murderers, to genocid-ers, to abusers. They stand up and say
no. And not just
no, not in my house, but also
no, not in my community; and, yes, sometimes they even stand up and say
no, not on my planet.
So, again, I'm not arguing that this is one of those times in Syria. I'm saying there are such times - at least, I'd be ashamed to be part of a society that didn't recognize that there are such times. We shouldn't pretend that, if we don't have interests in Syria and what's going on there doesn't affect us, and intervening would carry costs and risks, then that closes the book on whether we should intervene. It doesn't, at least not so long as we're human beings capable of empathizing with other human beings. We should acknowledge that there is some point at which we should step in and stand up to horrible people doing (or having done) horrible things, even if there's no other reason for us to do so - even if it isn't in furtherance of our tangible interests - and even if there's a cost. Then we can focus on answering the question that matters in this case, rather than the straw men (e.g. do we have an interest in choosing sides there?) that make a potentially tough decision easy to dismiss. And the question that matters is, as it has been at times in the past, at what point do humans step in to stop or punish the horrible treatment of other humans - strangers, yes, half way around the world, yes, but humans nonetheless. And having gotten a sense of an acceptable answer to that question we have to ask ourselves if we've reached that point in Syria - what has actually happened there and does it rise to the level at which we have an obligation to intervene - not because of our American-ity, but because of our humanity. I would hope that one of the qualities of the former, a distinguishing quality if that be the state of the world, would be that it largely reflected the latter.