Exactly what these vital interests are is left unexplained.
For 40 years, we have lived with a Damascus regime led by either Bashar Assad or his father, Hafez Assad. Were our "vital interests" in peril all four decades?
In 1991, George H.W. Bush recruited the elder Assad into his Desert Storm coalition that liberated Kuwait. Damascus sent 4,000 troops. In gratitude, we hosted a Madrid Conference to advance a land-for-peace deal between Assad and Israel.
It failed, but it could have meant a return of the Golan Heights to Assad and Syria's return to the eastern bank of the Sea of Galilee.
We could live with that, but cannot live with Bashar?
Comes the reply: The reason is the Houla massacre, where more than 100 Syrians were slaughtered, mostly women and children, the most horrid atrocity in a 15-month war that has taken 10,000 lives.
We Americans cannot stand idly by and let this happen.
That massacre was indeed appalling, and apparently the work of rogue militia aligned with the regime. But in 1982, Bashar's father rolled his artillery up to the gates of Hama and, to crush an insurrection by the Muslim Brotherhood, fired at will into the city until 20,000 were dead.
What did America do? Nothing.
In Black September, 1970, Jordan's King Hussein used artillery on a Palestinian camp, killing thousands and sending thousands fleeing into Lebanon. During Lebanon's civil war from 1975 to 1990, more than 100,000 perished. In the 1980s, Iraq launched a war on Iran that cost close to a million dead.
We observed, content that our enemies were killing one another.
In 1992, Islamists in Algeria won the first round of voting and were poised to win the second. Democracy was about to produce a result undesired by the Western democracies. So Washington and Paris gave Algiers a green light to prevent the Islamists from coming to power. That Algerian civil war cost scores of thousands dead.
If Arab and Muslim peoples believe Americans are hypocrites who cynically consult their strategic interests before bemoaning Arab and Muslim victims of terror and war, do they not have a point?
As for the Post's idea of using U.S. air power to set up "safe zones" on Syrian soil, those are acts of war. What do we do if the Syrian army answers with artillery strikes on those safe zones or overruns one, inflicting a stinging defeat on the United States?