As discussed in yesterday’s posting, President Obama gave a speech at the White House on September 10th laying out the case for American intervention in Syria.  If you have read the speech, it’s a well-reasoned moral argument in favor of taking some kind of action against the Syrian regime that gassed its own people on August 21st as evidently proven by our satellite photography and imagery.  In President Obama’s remarks, he referred directly to the images that have apparently been shown to him by our intelligence services:  “The images from this massacre are sickening: Men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas. Others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath. A father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk. On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons, and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off-limits -- a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war.”

That evidence in the satellite images is a key piece of any diplomatic argument, especially one with such critical moral implications.  And there are certainly profound moral implications as the President alluded to the use of gas weapons by many nations during World War I with horrifying results and the use of gas to enable the holocaust by the Nazi regime during World War II.  Because of the shocking, malevolent, barbaric, and evil spectacle of these weapons in World War I, most nations easily agreed to a complete ban on the use of  these weapons during “normal” military operations.   The evil Nazi holocaust of World War II, largely made possible by the use of toxins to poison millions of Jews in the death camps, gave the world yet a second reminder of the horror of chemical weapons.  As the President noted in the 10 September speech, “Because these weapons can kill on a mass scale, with no distinction between soldier and infant, the civilized world has spent a century working to ban them. And in 1997, the United States Senate overwhelmingly approved an international agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, now joined by 189 governments that represent 98 percent of humanity.”

In addition, the evidence that chemical weapons were used by the Syrian regime on August 21st is overwhelming and irrefutable.  As President Obama noted, “No one disputes that chemical weapons were used in Syria. The world saw thousands of videos, cell phone pictures, and social media accounts from the attack, and humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with people who had symptoms of poison gas.”   Furthermore, we know the culprit without a shadow of a doubt:  “[W]e know the Assad regime was responsible. In the days leading up to August 21st, we know that Assad’s chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix sarin gas. They distributed gasmasks to their troops. Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces. Shortly after those rockets landed, the gas spread, and hospitals filled with the dying and the wounded. We know senior figures in Assad’s military machine reviewed the results of the attack, and the regime increased their shelling of the same neighborhoods in the days that followed. We’ve also studied samples of blood and hair from people at the site that tested positive for sarin.”

 Of course, even when we have proof of a “crime against humanity” and know who the perpetrator is, we would still need moral justification to act, a rational “chain of responsibility”  that connects the act to some cogent obligation that we have or role that we must fulfill.  National leaders must carefully weigh their options, and, once they have decided to act, must present their people with a compelling, rational, and moral explanation for the need to use military force in these circumstances since no military action  can be successful without the force of the political will of the majority of the population.

Already the political pundits, diplomatic and strategic experts, and “talking heads” are lining up either for or against this possible intervention in Syria.  Many who seem to be grounded in a secular, naturalistic, atheistic, liberal, progressive, or socialistic world view have automatically staked out their position that the moral obligation or right to act can only come from the consensus of the global community.  This is not to say that all in that camp have consensus on the issue, but for the sake of argument, based on the overwhelming percentage of articles that I am pulling up in research on my college’s ProQuest (and other databases), suffice it to say that most of those who self-identify as the political or social left are not too happy with what they quickly broad brush in their straw-man articles as hegemony or colonial adventures. 

Everyone’s got a right to their own opinion.  It’s a free country as they say.  But if we had let this idea of “community consensus” be the unbending, irrefutable, guiding principle for moral action in the past two hundred years of our country’s history, then many of our countless global efforts on behalf of the suffering and the downtrodden would never have taken place.  Such efforts would have died quickly in infancy, choked off by the unresponsive, unwieldy bureaucratic processes and maneuvers that typically occur at the international level.   Moreover, the Lord only knows how many such atrocities and humanitarian disasters throughout history went by without question or comment while other groups or nations stood by apathetically watching, perhaps thinking it was someone else’s responsibility or even  asking the sarcastically defiant question of Cain:  “Am I my brother’s keeper” (Genesis 4:9).   

What are our moral obligations as a nation?   More on this tomorrow.  May you have a peaceful, blessed day

 


Comments

09/01/2016 5:44am

I have a different strong opinion to the scenario. I think that the United States is illegally and immorally destroying Syrian homes and the refugees are severely in danger. I have to go get an essay writer for now to complete my research papers though.

Reply
09/11/2016 2:31am

Great info! I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have.

Reply
10/16/2016 12:27am

Nowadays, politics has become more of a chess game rather than motivating the people to do the right where it is right and serving what you stand for, I am totally against such strategies.

Reply
09/15/2017 6:52am

Very good lesson. It gives inspiration to keep learning.

Reply



Leave a Reply

    Author

    I'm a retired soldier, having spent 23 years of my life serving our country, actually 30 years when you count the reserve and National Guard time as well.  I believe in servant leaders, following the example of our Lord, and I believe in giving back to the troops once one has attained a certain status or level of success in life.  But I also believe in fighting back against corruption and incompetence wherever you find it if it hurts people.  Our national values were worth dying for.  They are also worth living for.  A man or woman can actually live a life by these principles of humility, service, love, duty, and honor, and have a significant impact on the world around them...if you have the dedication to see it through. 

    Archives

    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012

    Categories

    All