If you have been following world news at all in the last few weeks, one country has surely caught your attention: Syria. While this may just seem like another rebellion halfway around the world to be forgotten as soon as the next one pops up, it has afforded a unique view into how we here in the United States deal with such conflicts.

For the many who are unfamiliar with countries that don’t start with “U” and end in “America,” Syria is a country in the Middle East that has been led by Bashar al-Assad since 2000.

Syria is in recent news because of chemical weapon attacks that have been perpetrated against its citizens. U.S. intelligence has confirmed that the attacks were carried out by Assad’s regime.

The latest of the chemical attacks killed more than 1,400 individuals, including over 400 children, said Secretary of State John Kerry. This revelation comes in the wake of continuing debate over the extent to which the U.S. should be involved in the conflict.

The knowledge that Syria’s government used chemical weapons against its people has raised an important question: Now that we know what happened, what do we do?

The White House has made their intentions clear from statements given by President Barack Obama and Kerry. In Kerry’s words: “This is not the time for armchair isolationism. This is not the time to be spectators to slaughter. Neither our country nor our conscience can afford the cost of silence.”

Those opposed to the idea that the United States should involve its military in conflicts that pose no practical threat to our national security, such as Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., have a few valid points.

Why should American military resources and personnel be used and risked to defend those who are not American? Why should we favor one militant group over another? In a much broader sense, why should we be the world’s policeman?

One might think that since this is just another Middle East conflict, like all of the others that the United States has been involved in over the preceding decades, the same arguments are being aired out once again.

In reality, this is a fairly different situation. Unlike our entanglement in Iraq, there is not a perception that Syria has the capability to endanger our nation’s security with “weapons of mass destruction.”

Also unlike the more recent conflict in Libya, in which we used military force against Moammar Gadhafi’s regime, there is no global support for military intervention — yet.

So far, France has declared itself “ready to go,” but the United Nations and NATO, two of the world’s most powerful international coalitions, have not officially supported military action. The parliament of the United Kingdom has even voted to stay out of the conflict as of yet.

This puts the United States in a position we have been in before: We are contemplating taking global action all by ourselves.

There is a significant development this time, though. Obama has asked Congress for its approval of military intervention. Presidents long have exercised an assumed power they are able to take military actions without congressional approval, although only on a short-term basis.

While the Obama administration has claimed that it would have the legal authority to proceed with military operations whether or not Congress gives its approval, the fact that the White House is asking first certainly means something.

To some, it means that Obama has all but given up on being a political powerhouse in the global stage. His request of Congress can be seen as accepting the notion that he does not have the power former presidents enjoyed, or even that he does not want it.

I choose to see the White House’s actions as something different. Perhaps Obama’s request of Congress is an example of precisely what our system of “checks and balances” intended — cooperation between branches of government.

By asking Congress to officially give their thoughts on military action, the President is acknowledging that he is not the only one leading this country. Such an acknowledgement is far too rare an event in politics.

Instead of blindly charging forward with the ideas of his administration, Obama has shown the country that he will at least be taking into account the opinions of a Congress that has often been directly at odds with the executive branch.

Whatever actions the United States takes regarding Syria, it has opened an important dialogue about who we are, what we stand for, and how our government decides what we, as the most powerful nation in the world, will do.