Opposition to oppressive ideologies

James Rubin has an interesting article in Newsweek about foreign policy and how it has changed in the last decade. After WWII our leaders developed the policy of "liberal internationalism":

The idea was that American foreign policy could not simply be a matter of looking out for ourselves, but ought to be tied to larger ambitions—among them, the creation and preservation of a world order in which democratic values and economic freedom could thrive; the championing of a rules-based international system; the mitigation of regional conflicts and instability; and opposition to oppressive ideologies.

This policy was in place from Roosevelt forward, though details may have varied from one president to the next. A few of them didn't venture into areas (Clinton in Rwanda) that this policy would have suggested as appropriate.

But with our reluctance to get involved in Syria (and Libya, Egypt, and lots of other places) and that reluctance supported by the American people, we are obviously not operating based on that policy now.

Why the difference?

Rubin says it is because Bush II used that policy to justify invading Iraq -- and failed spectacularly.

Which means Americans are now quite reluctant to come to anyone's aid. That leaves Syrians wondering who will come to stop the slaughter.