I know I am in the minority on this, but moral positions always are. I still remember my year at Command and General Staff College, arguing with a group of line officers about how narcissistic it is for the U.S. to determine to take military action based only on the self-interest of the nation. The issue then was Rwanda, and my position was that if we had the capability to stop genocide, we were morally obligated to do so, even if there was NO vital US interest at stake. The systematic destruction of innocent souls is a moral outrage, which requires all Nations who possess the ability to do so, to take action to try and stop that destruction.
Obviously my moral view on this issue is governed by my eternal perspective of God as the Father of all the world's inhabitants, and as the only source of absolute morality. It is HIS imperative, as expressed by his Son, Jesus that we seek out, protect, bless and lift God's children, all of them. None of Christ's teachings on that point were restricted by borders or governments, but actually transcended them. The call was not one based on convenience or self interest, but one which implied self sacrifice.
But we are an amoral society. Narcissism truly does govern our "moral" decisions. Today, sacrifice and risk taking are dirty words, unless we can tie them to some self interest, some self centered benefit. That being the case, then Isolationism actually makes sense. For the selfish there is no need to do anything to save Sunni children from annihilation by chemical means. Their ghastly and painful deaths mean nothing to such, and can be forgotten by a flip of a switch or click of a mouse, while they refocus their attention on their own children and the vastly more important, self-centered, questions like whether the soccer coach is treating them fairly.
However, for the selfless, who see value in all life, (regardless of how that life is defined, the manner of worship they choose, or type of clothes they wear), to have the means to stop their annihilation, and then to choose to not employ those means, is morally wrong, and will bring upon those who make such choices the condemnation of a just God, whose love is unconditional. In my view, the failure of the United States to take some action, to at least try and stop Assad from employing Chemical weapons in the future, will make us partially accountable for their continued use. The future suffering and deaths of each Sunni boy and each Sunni girl will be required by God at the hands of all, who for selfish reasons, chose to ignore them, to abandon them to their fate. Such victims will join with the millions of other victims of genocide, from many countries, whose lives might have been spared, had their American Brothers and Sisters taken action. To do nothing makes us complicit, and lowers us to the level of the radical jihadists who have no qualms about klling children for a cause.
I am familiar with the selfish cry : "We cannot be the world's policeman" which to me is the moral equivalent of Cain's smart-aleck retort to God "Am I my brother's keeper?"…. Ironically the answer back to Cain would have been a resounding: "YES Cain, you are!
Rather than spend so many hours and so much of our resources debating over and seeking for reasons to show why the deaths by chemical agents mean nothing to us, we should rather be exercising our combined wisdom and resources to find a way to stop the genocide. One way could be a military strike with sufficient force to threaten Assad's existence enough, so that he will, for his own Narcissistic reasons, recognize that he cannot use such weapons in the future and still remain in power. If such a strike is truly possible, then it also becomes a moral imperative.