Some thoughtfulness from a few who are able to see the forest and trees is provided today in the Washington
Post. Here are some excerpts from The Ethics of a Syrian Military Intervention:The Experts Respond.
The just war tradition is based on a series of arguments to
be tested before using force against another population. Legitimate and
competent authorities must logically argue that the use of force will end or
limit the suffering of a people and these forceful actions are the last options
after all diplomatic, social, political, and economic measures have been
exhausted. (Stanley Hauerwas)
My problem is that I don’t see why this kind of chemical
attack matters so mightily when 100,000 civilians have been killed in Syria
already. It seems to me that you’ve had massive attacks on civilians — with the
world standing aside — that should have been the reason for intervention. But
there’s also a question of proportionality and success, and I think that there
are good reasons to think you might make things worse by a military attack. (Rev.
Drew Christiansen)
From a moral perspective, it appears that observers see
killing civilians with chemical weapons as somehow different from killing
civilians with conventional weapons. I don’t know why there would be any
distinction. Egyptians who are killed are just as dead as the Syrians who were
killed, and though it appears that dying of a chemical weapons attack is an
awful experience, frankly bleeding to death from a gunshot wound to your chest
or stepping on a mine that blows off your leg is equally awful. So anyone who
makes an argument that there’s a moral obligation to act has to address that
question: Why here and not there? (Andrew J. Bacevich)
No comments:
Post a Comment