With military action now seeming likely in Syria, one has to ask whether the United States is defined by war.<\/p>\n
On Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a resolution granting President Obama \u201climited authority\u201d in launching a military strike on Syria and President Bashar al-Assad\u2019s regime in retaliation for the alleged use of chemical weapons on its own people.\u00a0 The 10-to-7 vote sets up a full vote in the Senate next week on whether or not President Obama will be granted the authority to strike Syria.<\/p>\n
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney applauded the committee<\/a> for its quick action, stating \u201cWe commend the Senate for moving swiftly and for working across party lines on behalf of our national security.\u00a0 We believe America is stronger when the President and Congress work together.\u00a0 The military action authorized in the resolution would uphold America\u2019s national security interests by degrading Assad\u2019s chemical weapons capability and deterring the future use of these weapons, even as we pursue a broader strategy of strengthening the opposition to hasten a political transition in Syria.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s the last half of the last sentence of Carney\u2019s statement that may hold clues as to what our involvement in Syria may encompass, especially as we attempt to \u201chasten a political transition.\u201d\u00a0 \u00a0Although the current Senate resolution bars U.S. ground troops in Syria and sets a deadline on how long the U.S. can be involved in any action, it would appear, by Carney\u2019s words, that the administration is still pursuing possible further action.<\/p>\n But perhaps fighting comes \u201cnaturally\u201d for America.\u00a0 Looking back through U.S. history, it\u2019s obvious that the U.S. has been involved in some type of military operation or war campaign for nearly every decade of our existence. <\/a> And we seem to be keeping pace or accelerating in the 21st<\/sup> century.<\/p>\n We fought for our independence from the British.\u00a0 After the Revolutionary War, expansion began, and in turn, there were numerous wars with Native American tribes.\u00a0 We fought the French (Franco-American War), some North African countries (African Anti-Slavery Operations), Caribbean and Greek pirates (Barbary Coast War, Second Barbary Coast War, West Indies Anti-Piracy Operations, Aegean Anti-Slavery Operations), the British again in 1812, Spain (Spanish-American War), Mexico (remember the Alamo?), and even turned on ourselves in 1860, fighting a bitter, bloody Civil War.\u00a0 As if that wasn\u2019t enough bloodshed, we continued expansion, fighting yet more American Indian Wars.<\/p>\n And since becoming a global power around the turn of the last century, the U.S. has fought nearly a dozen other wars or military campaigns, including WWI, WWII, Korean and Vietnam Wars, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya (Benghazi).\u00a0 While we recently ended the war in Iraq, we continue to fight in Afghanistan and are now seriously flirting with another fight, this time in Syria.\u00a0 So why does the U.S. keep getting into all of these fights?<\/p>\n