Sense or Sensibility in Foreign Intervention in Syria?

I am rather skeptical that a philosophical mandate exists for war. War seems to be a practical human activity such as rival colonies of ants do rather than an intelligent, philosophical practice.

Arguably U.S. intervention in the First World War led to global destabilization and a century of needless U.S. conflicts abroad. The Second World war and the Stalinist phenomenon would not have occurred except the German Imperial Government was deposed at the end of the war to enable an Armistice. Syrian intervention is another dubious issue perhaps flamed into being by the U.S. administration and the U.N. in order to accomplish a regime change.

The Obama Doctrine of regime changes in the Arab Spring... seems to be a function of British use of the U.S. military as their stooges for free military adventurism in furtherance of global imperialism for Britain economically speaking through a variety of financial means. The horror of terrorism upon civilian populations is repugnant to right reason of course, yet the perfidy of intervention by foreign powers can arise through a number of means.

The Alawi people of Syria are a tough, fighting tribe historically. The balances of power developed in the Middle East since 25,000 B.C. are sometimes a little beyond the depth of competence in the U.S. State Department and administration I think. I am fairly sure that I don't regard an indirect treacherous policy for 'diplomacy in the Middle East as forthright. If we must get rid of some government because people in Des Moines hate them, then we might attack them directly and put out of work Chicagoans to work in Damascus with an Obama stimulus package for government workers (Joking of course).

Like the Bush administration in Iraq there seems to be no post-regime change planning for Syria. Another conflict with lots of bodies splattered about en route to some glorious news coverage of the Condor Legion II blasting the fugitives into the stone age with precision weapons may be a way to help create another Sunni state in an ad hoc New Caliphate. Why?

Hamas was originally the Muslim Brotherhood too, and the new Egyptian President will probably be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, as would a post Alawite Syrian leaders. Is that kind of situation supposed to intimidate Iran into giving up any loose nukes it may have panhandled from the Pakistanis' North Koreans or Russian, Chinese or whomever? On the contrary Iran might feel more in need of nukes to defend against a Sunni Middle East including Pakistan and an Afghanistan also possibly to be dominated by a restored new age Taliban.

I wonder about the competence of the administration on Syria since they have declared the wish for a regime change without providing plans for a post Assad government--will it have McDonald's or whatever so tourists can afford it?

It would be good if the United States could develop a record of intelligent, peaceful world leadership rather than a history of just bombing someplace for convenience and humanitarianism every five years or so. Old weapons inventories may need to be used, yet the Defense Department budget is funded with borrowing as much as taxes-and that too is a direct threat to the standard of living of the poor in the U.S.A. Is it the middle class that consistently desires foreign military interventionism?