Going to war “to make a point” is as morally repellent as the use of chemical weapons

http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/08/26/waging-war-in-syria-to-make-a-point/

… “a single retaliatory attack that strives to make a point rather than a difference” – is even more nefarious than an all-out, boost-on-the-ground war for regime change in Syria.

Imagine if President Obama came before the American people and said, “I’m going to bomb another country to make a point. Not to defend American security or interests.

Not even to protect the Syrian people from Bashar al-Assad. Just to make a point.” Do you think the American people would buy this for a second?

This is the old “credibility” argument. Obama told the world that Assad’s use of chemical weapons is a “red line” that would prompt U.S. military action.

So, to protect Obama’s reputation as a reliable war-maker who bombs people when he says he will, we have to go to war in Syria? Eh, ok…

In his criticism of this doctrine, Micah Zenko described the myth thusly:

“Whenever the decision of a foreign leader contrasts with what Washington demands, U.S. global credibility is ‘waning’ and in need of being ‘restored.’”

Rubbish. Going to war “to make a point” is as morally repellent as the use of chemical weapons.

Reply · Report Post