And how is that different from any other major power, when they get the opportunity to flewx their muscles?
The US has been increasingly isolationist under Trump (for obvious reasons), doesn't seem to have offered a great deal of help to the people of Syria.
In fact the current crisis has been driven by their effective withdrawal leaving a local power with an axe to grind moving in to fill the vacuum.
I'm no defender of US foreign policy adventures over the last decades, but lets not make out that the world would be sweetness and light if they suddenly moved to a completely isolationist stance (we managed 2 world wars over the last 105 years at times when the US was isolationist), other major global and regional powers would just try to imporve their position in the absence of the US.
The problem is a hell of a lot more down to human nature than the US being in some way uniquely nasty.
This is not a simple issue of interventionism vs non-interventionism. It is about the fucked up geo-political policies and priorities of the united states, which has led to its involvement in several debacles like Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya to name a few. They have intervened where not needed and not intervened where needed, due to their shortsightedness and self interest.
The US could have played a leading role in creating consensus among major regional and continental powers (Russia, Turkey, Israel among others) to facilitate a clean transition in Syria, with Assad to step down after a grace period of 12 months, to retire in some remote island somewhere. Instead, a 'strategy' to dethrone Assad was adopted as state policy, leading to the arming of militias fighting against the government and contributing to further violence and unrest. This would also have made the battle to eradicate ISIL in Syria and Iraq a lot more easier for the coalition, with the combined power of resources of Russia, US/NATO and regional players.
The objectives from the beginning should have been;
- Enable conditions for a non violent displacement of Assad from his position of power in Syria, using all diplomatic means available. I am sure Russia would have agreed to a phased removal of Assad from power with the promise of democratic processes to decide the next head of the state. The thousands fighting the regime could be persuaded to agree to a plan that involved Assad stepping down peacefully, given this was their main objective.
- Collectively fight ISIS in a strategic and incisive manner, pooling all resources from the major powers. Tens of thousands of US, British, French, Russian, Israeli, German, Australian and other troops fighting ISIS in Syria and Iraq would have been much more effective than all of the parties fighting their own separate battles in multiple fronts.
And do i even need to mention the disastrous outcomes in Iraq and Afghanistan? Americans are now actually considering sitting down with Taliban to 'negotiate', leaving Afghans and the government in the lurch, after fighting Taliban for decades. Iraq is in shambles and ripe for another ISIS uprising in the Sunni dominated areas.
The prospect of thousands of ISIS combatants being set free due to Turkish aggression against the Kurds is scary. Which is exactly what is going to happen, thanks to weak responses from the US and EU countries.
Clusterfuck everywhere they have trodden.