The U.S. has often assumed the role of “policeman” of the world, especially when other nations and international organizations fail to act on pressing issues. A recent example of this is the U.S.-led coalition airstrikes against the Syrian Assad government.
It is without a doubt all of our readers are aware of the years-long conflict in the Middle Eastern nation of Syria, but I have spoken to many who do not understand why the U.S. is involved in the conflict, or how risking U.S. lives to stabilize the far-away nation brings any benefit to Americans.  
At my core, I am a diplomat. I stand firmly resolved diplomacy should always be the first method employed in quelling tensions, but I also understand how words must be backed by actions, and breaking diplomatic agreements must be met with repercussions.
According to BBC News, since all diplomatic channels have failed, these airstrikes have emerged as one of the few remaining viable options in making it known to Assad how the world will not stand idly by while he attacks his own innocent civilians. To have the U.S. regarded as the “leader of the free world” spearheading these airstrikes, adds gravity to the belligerent players, which shows this so-called leader of the free world will not allow a continuation of these atrocities.
When no one else is able to enforce international law, someone must step up and take on this mantel. The U.S. ignoring violations of international law sets an egregious precedent. If Syria is allowed to violate it, what is to stop other nations from doing so as well?
All of our diplomatic achievements will be meaningless if we lack the military willpower to hold violators accountable for their actions.
Imagine a scenario where the police attempt to stop an active shooter without having a gun on them. Rather than shooting the shooter, they simply yell at him to stop what he is doing as they witness him mowing down innocents with complete disregard for everything the police shout at him. It seems unreal, does it not? Well, this is the current reality for the innocent Syrians.  
I feel passionately about this subject for two reasons: I am an international political science major, and I am a Jew. The first title does not require much elaboration as to its relevance in this piece, but I would like to speak briefly on the latter. 
Jon Sharman of The Independent argues the crimes against humanity which occurred during the Holocaust bear resemblance to the Assad government’s ongoing actions in Syria. A corrupt politician turned military dictator arrogates power in a nation and uses this power to commit genocide against his own powerless people.
Far more damage would have occurred to the helpless civilians in Nazi Europe if not for the U.S. and other nation’s intervention. The U.S. has seen what happens to peoples living under an unchecked military dictator after standing idly by for too long. Do we really want to subjugate the people of Syria to the same fate of those under Nazi rule when we have means to deter such an abomination? I cannot think we do.
I am not a war hawk. In fact, war scares me. However, I am also scared of the idea of drawing meaningless lines in the sand so often that the world loses respect for us.
Andrew Roth and Hannah Ellis-Peterson of The Guardian describe the high tensioned exchange the U.S. had with Putin since the attack. We told Putin to stay out of Georgia, he ignored us; we told Putin to stay out of Crimea, he ignored us; we told Assad to stop using chemical weapons against his people, he ignored us.  
This trend of military dictators ignoring the U.S.’ positions in favor of the greater good, in favor of those who are too tired and defenseless to remain vocally opposed themselves, must be stopped, and these recent airstrikes in Syria bring us closer to telling the world we mean business.
The U.S. should be a beacon of hope to all peoples, American or otherwise, and we must fight tyranny with our allies wherever we find it until a competent international organization which does so emerges.