Reblogged: Assad’s “Moral Obscenity” Does Not Justify Obscenity

[Blog Auto Feed Retired]

Secretary of State John Kerry is right that Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s use of nerve gas against the Syrian population is a “moral obscenity”—but he is wrong that this moral obscenity justifies U.S. military intervention.

As Reuters reports, the evidence indicates Assad used “rockets or missiles . . . to disperse a nerve agent in the worst chemical attack in a quarter of a century.” As one British military analyst told Reuters, “the idea is to drop these things on a population, kill lots of people very quickly, and then your own forces can go in [after the gas has dispersed] without suffering consequences.”

In response, Kerry “strongly implied that the United States is ready to embark on direct military action” against Assad, the Los Angeles Times reports.

But Assad’s assault on Syrians does not justify military action by the United States, whether direct or indirect. Syria is embroiled in a civil war, with Assad’s brutal totalitarian regime pitted against rebels, many of whom may have equally totalitarian aims. A Reuters report refers to “al-Qaeda’s growing role” among the rebel forces and to “the growth of radical Islamists in rebel-held areas.” Employing military action against Assad’s regime certainly will not bolster the security of America or of Americans.

The proper purpose of U.S. military action is not to sacrifice American lives, safety, munitions, and wealth for the sake of oppressed peoples (much less barbarians such as al-Qaeda) throughout the world; the proper purpose of U.S. military action is to protect the security of America and the rights of Americans.

That the Assad regime terrorizes and kills Syrians, including, no doubt, many innocent people (e.g., children), is indeed a moral obscenity. But ending this moral obscenity is not the moral responsibility of the U.S. military.

The Syrian conflict is a civil war—the outcome of which has no discernable bearing on U.S. security. For the U.S. government to sacrifice the safety of American soldiers and the wealth of the American people by engaging in this conflict would stack obscenity upon obscenity. This is not America’s war.

Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard.

Related:

• “No Substitute for Victory”—The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism
• Obama’s “Tough Talk” Regarding Syria’s Membership in UNESCO Body is Immorally Inadequate

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Link to Original

[Nicky]

This argument seems to rest on the assumption that Assad's government is neutral to the US. Far from true, Assad is the principal ally of both Hezbollah (a group responsible for many American deaths, and an active terrorist group on the Israeli border) and Iran (one of the two most hostile to the US countries in the world, the other being North Korea) in the Middle East. 

 

And it's not really a conflict between Al Qaeda and Assad. Al Qaeda is involved, as expected, in this conflict, sure. They are involved in every conflict in the region, and will continue to be for a long time. That won't change, irrespective of whether Assad stays in power or not.

 

The US has an opportunity to bolster non-Islamist forces in Syria, at relatively little cost. Even if the benefits are as small as getting rid of Assad and thereby weakening Hezbollah and Iran, they seem to be worth it.

[Nicky]

I just thought of a question that's related to this article: In today's world, when it takes less than 24 hours to travel from one point on the planet to any other, is evil ever not an objective threat to the United States, or any other country at least trying to be good?

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Nicky: i think not. In the globalized age, tyranny against anyone in the world is ultimately a threat to us.

But don't let anyone else hear that. The left would demand a global, communist regime and the right would demand to invade someone.

---

Any injustice, anywhere in the modern world, basically affects us.

But we only have finite ressources; we still have to prioritize.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Syria is a little threat. What we should be doing is taking out Iran and north Korea; to hell with anyone who backs them!

[Nicky]

The difference is, in Syria we're only lending a hand (in fact, not even a hand, just some air power), we're not doing the heavy lifting. In Iran we would be fighting a ground war, alone. And North Korea would be very difficult to take out, and most definitely not worth the price. 

 

Arguing that we shouldn't be doing something easy to take out an enemy dictator, because he's not the biggest dictator in the world, makes no sense to me. If Iran was in the middle of a revolution, I'd support helping that along too. But they're not. Syria is. 

Edited September 3, 2013 by Nicky

[thenelli01]

 

Arguing that we shouldn't be doing something easy to take out an enemy dictator, because he's not the biggest dictator in the world, makes no sense to me. If Iran was in the middle of a revolution, I'd support helping that along too. But they're not. Syria is. 

 

I don't know of anyone arguing that. The argument is that it is not in our rational self interest to get involved. My argument is that it is immoral to claim that Assad using chemical weapons during a civil war is a vital national security issue that needs immediate action, while at the same time being unwilling to stand up to Iran, the main source of the Islamic terrorist movement and evil men like Assad, when it is currently in production of a nuclear bomb. The latter is clearly a more immediate and dangerous threat that should not be ignored.

Edited September 3, 2013 by thenelli01

[Nicky]

 

 

I don't know of anyone arguing that. The argument is that it is not in our rational self interest to get involved. 

That's not an argument, that's a statement. Arguments would involve explaining why, or, even better, combating the arguments I already gave for why it is in our rational self interest.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Nicky

[Nicky]

 

 My argument is that it is immoral to claim that Assad using chemical weapons during a civil war is a vital national security issue that needs immediate action, while at the same time being unwilling to stand up to Iran

 

My argument is that it's immoral to eat chicken while at the same time being unwilling to stand up to Iran.

 

Funny thing about that argument: it doesn't prove anything about the morality of eating chicken. If you want to prove A false, you prove A false. Saying "A is false because A AND B is false" is bad logic.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Nicky

[thenelli01]

That's not an argument, that's a statement. Arguments would involve explaining why, or, even better, combating the arguments I already gave for why it is in our rational self interest.

 

I wasn't attempting to present an argument. I was telling you what the argument is so you can stop making stuff up. Anyone that wants to find out the explanation can read or listen to Objectivists or other commentators write/speak about this issue.

 

 

My argument is that it's immoral to eat chicken while at the same time being unwilling to stand up to Iran.

 

Funny thing about that argument: it doesn't prove anything about the morality of eating chicken. If you want to prove A false, you prove A false. Saying "A is false because A AND B is false" is bad logic.

 

 

Is it immoral for the US to ignore a direct threat, that is hellbent on the destruction of the US and Isreal, gain a nuclear weapon? A FP that ignores that threat is immoral because it puts our lives in danger. 

 

Edited September 3, 2013 by thenelli01

[thenelli01]

 

Funny thing about that argument: it doesn't prove anything about the morality of eating chicken. If you want to prove A false, you prove A false. Saying "A is false because A AND B is false" is bad logic.

 

You're right. But, it wasn't my intention to show why attacking Syria is immoral - actually, I think you make the best case out of all the arguments I have read as to why it may be a good idea. But, without a strong strategy, with an entry and exit plan, and clear goals, it is best to stay out of the conflict. It is a vey complex issue with many different factions involved and these interventions tend to backfire on us. So, without a clear strategy and goals, which I have not seen yet, it is best to let them kill each other and save our money.

 

My point was that it is a contradiction in our FP to condemn and take immediate action on Syria for using chemical weapons, but to ignore Iran building a nuclear weapon.

Edited September 3, 2013 by thenelli01

[Nicky]

Anyone that wants to find out the explanation can read or listen to Objectivists or other commentators write/speak about this issue.

At the moment, I can't read or listen to Objectivists and other commentators elsewhere, because I'm ON THIS FORUM looking for such commentary. I'll look elsewhere some other time.

How is posting at least ten times in both threads on this issue, and then just saying "go some place else for an actual argument" constructive?

 

Is it immoral for the US to ignore a direct threat, that is hellbent on the destruction of the US and Isreal, gain a nuclear weapon? A FP that ignores that threat is immoral because it puts our lives in danger.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/package-dealing,_fallacy_of.html

 

Failing to address Iran's nuclear program effectively is only one aspect of US policy. Calling the entirety of US foreign policy immoral, based on that, defies logic.

US foreign policy, like all other US policy, is a mixed bag. The United States does protect individual rights, both at home and as a foreign policy. It just doesn't do so consistently. But it still does a better job than any other country, especially when it comes to foreign threats. That state of affairs is hardly summed up by the statement "US foreign policy is immoral".

Declaring that self-interested action in Syria is immoral because the lack of action against Iran is immoral, is the equivalent of declaring that anti-murder laws are immoral because of immoral drug laws.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Nicky

[Harrison Danneskjold]

 

 

I don't know of anyone arguing that. 

Ah. . . I was?

 

The difference is, in Syria we're only lending a hand (in fact, not even a hand, just some air power), we're not doing the heavy lifting. In Iran we would be fighting a ground war, alone.

Yes; it would be much easier to take out Syria.  But for what conceivable purpose?

It's sad that the dictator is killing his own civilians, but to be frank, I'm not sure I really trust those civilians either.  The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend at all.

 

I would be much more comfortable invading if we had any indication, maybe just a letter or something, that someone with half a brain over there could be put in charge as an ally of ours.  Or at least not an enemy.

 

In Iran, it would be much harder indeed.  But what would be accomplished by such an action- or inaction?

 

 And North Korea would be very difficult to take out, and most definitely not worth the price. 

And the price of inaction?

 

Any mystic-collectivist, anti-American, antihuman nutjob, who runs around trying to build a nuke, strikes me as sort of a top-priority problem.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

As long as there is the strong possibility that I may wake up one morning radioactive, to be perfectly honest, I find it very difficult to care what happens in Syria.