Moral Obligations

In all the chaos of the last week in Syria, the involved parties have lost sight of an important question: why are we talking about military action in Syria?

We know Syria's regime has used chemical weapons against its own citizens. This shouldn't surprise us since, in fact, it's not the first time this has happened. While chemical weapons are horrible and inflict an increased amount of suffering, they so far have have accounted for about 1,400-1,500 of the more than 100,000 deaths since this conflict began. Perhaps nerve gas caused more suffering than an explosion (and perhaps it didn't), but was it really okay for us to sit idly by while 99,000 innocent people were slaughtered and then get all high and mighty about the last 1,400 because they were killed differently?

I accept that America cannot always be the world's police. We do not have the means to prevent every tragedy or to deter all atrocities. But I cannot and will not accept that the world's mightiest power, a country that spends more than any other on its military, would allow that military to sit idly by while innocent people are slaughtered elsewhere. If we want to be the world's leader we ought to act like it, and sometimes that means making decisions that are difficult and unpopular. I can lay copious reasons why the US should get involved in Syria for our own selfish purposes, but all of those are trumped by the fact that the world's leading advocate for human rights (if, in fact, our nation still bears that mantle) has done absolutely nothing to stop the indiscriminate killing of more than a hundred thousand people.

If America is going to be the world's leader, we must take a stand to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Again, I acknowledge that the United States cannot avert every international human rights crisis, nor can we solve those that arise, but we have a moral obligation to prevent massacres. That we have failed to act repeatedly over the course of the last three years is, frankly, entirely unacceptable.

In a past post I sketched out what some possible interventions might look like, though much of what I proposed was more timely then than it is now. Admittedly, effective intervention in Syria won't be pretty or easy, but things worth doing are rarely easy, and I maintain that those who oppose action in Syria must defend their position by explaining to me why it is acceptable for us to do nothing while more innocent people are killed.

While our options may be tricky or fraught with risks, the rationale for intervention is not. I am not concerned with US credibility except so far as that our failure to act now may encourage others to do worse in the future. If we think 100,000 innocent lives aren't worth fighting for, how many will the next madman kill before we take action? If we want to be a global beacon for human rights, we must guarantee the protection of those rights at home and abroad when we are capable. We currently find ourselves facing a situation in which our actions stand a very good chance of success, and where the most fundamental human right, the right to life itself, is under assault.

Our collective moral compass and our national security concerns both lead to the same conclusion: action is needed to rectify a growing human rights disaster in an increasingly unstable country whose collapse would create far worse circumstances than those which currently exist. I believe President Obama made the right decision to ask for Congressional approval for a strike on Syria. I now hope that the President has a plan in mind to ensure success and that Congress makes the brave vote to save lives.