Missiles ≠ Love

I've been doing a little soul searching recently. Not the kind that George Osborne wants me to be doing, necessarily. But then it is hard to believe that George Osborne wants much in his life, other than to chastise the working classes for economic gain. The type of soul searching I've been doing has indeed led me to 'contemplate Britain's role in the world,' but the eventual conclusion that I have reached is probably antithetical to that which the Chancellor might have wanted.
In response to the British Parliament's blocking of the movement led by David Cameron to hypothetically support the US with intervention in Syria, my soul searching has yielded some fruits:

Firstly, and notwithstanding the huge complexities in the Middle East and Levant regions at the moment, Syria's neighbours must make an effort to intervene. The Arab League has decisively blamed the Assad regime for the chemical attack of the 21st August, yet declined to intervene. The Arab League consists of key global and regional players, with a huge military power, largely supplied by UK and US manufacturers. They have the capacity, and the necessity, to intervene. Yet they refuse. 
Jordan, an AL member, has seen a huge influx of refugees from Syria, placing huge strain on their finances and infrastructure. It is in their interest to see a resolve. Perhaps one spanner, however, is the support coming from Hezbollah to the Assad government; A key player in the Syrian government's recapture of Qusayr, Lebanon would not support any military intervention unless aimed at empowering Assad's regime.

Saudi Arabia has an upper hand in the region. The oil rich nation has access to a modern infrastructure of weaponry - something that it was keen to show off during the Bahrain uprising. This nation has huge power. But for years now it has been in a diplomatic melange: one of the US' key allies in the region, it is also one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism and supported the Taliban whilst it was receiving ground support from Al Qaeda. Nevertheless, it has supported the rebel-led opposition - if only verbally- and reports surfaced in the British Telegraph that they were colluding with Russia to offer a favourable oil deal if support for the Assad regime were dropped. Considering our arms ties with Saudi, there may or may not exist a stronger economic argument for the UK to support Saudi in a tactical military intervention. Saudi, after all, has more historical and social similarities to Syria than us. Not to mention more money.

My point is that it is almost pointless even considering any role in this region whilst diplomatic relations in the area are based on money and power. It is absolutely heart-wrenching to watch victims of Sarin, and more recently Napalm (or napalm like substances) suffering in makeshift hospitals, it honestly is. But We, the United Kingdom, are not responsible for any of this and as such have limited responsibility over it. It occurs to me that there are at least 3 types of rationale for intervention: rationale based on historical ties, on proximity or on morality.
I was in favour of French intervention in Mali: as an old colony, maintaining relations and accepting some degree of responsibility is of vital importance to the stability of certain regions. Britain, with its huge array former colonies, would do better to focus on improving relations with these countries, many of whom are ravaged by terrorism, diplomatic instability and poverty.
Yes, there is a moral argument for intervention in Syria. And I am not against the concept of any action in Syria. But it occurs to me that none of the parties with historic or proximate ties are taking their share of responsibility over their region.

Britain is a key global player, true. But sometimes it looks to me to be a jack of all trades: we want economic power, we like having London as a global financial hub, we like having influence and trade links and historical ties and giving aid. We also like to maintain military prowess. We are not the world police. We can no longer be a part of Team America. We must free ourselves of the notion that we still have colonial powers and realise that, if 190 members of the UN are not taking any responsibility for a country in the midst of one of the worst civil wars in decades, it is futile that 60% of the P5 tries to police the world. I do feel a heartbroken when I watch these people and their suffering, but I do believe that their neighbours are in a strategically better position to make a meaningful intervention, whether militarily or diplomatically.

So, George Osborne. I have been doing some thinking. And yet again, with regret, I believe that you are wrong.