There is a great deal of confusion over what the President is proposing regarding U.S. aerial attacks in Syria and whether this is a just and ethical move on the part of our country. There is also confusion as to what led up to this positioned attack and what the possible ramifications could be for our country and the Middle East.
Syria, a country bordered by Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, and Lebanon, has long been plagued by civil unrest as well as strained relations with bordering countries in the Middle East. More than 100,000 Syrians have died in the civil war that has been going on over the past two years due to an uprising against the President (Bashar Assad) by his opponents and radicals of al Qaeda. Until this point in time the U.S. has remained neutral because federal law prohibits us from aiding al Qaeda, which we would be doing if we dropped bombs in order to help oust the President.
The media has splashed images of innocent people (including children) being gassed in Syria, apparently by their own government. Atrocities such as these are always horrific and are a crime against humanity and the dignity of the human person. Unfortunately, there is more of this behavior than we would like to admit in many countries across the globe taking place at this very moment. Nevertheless, our own government knows that Americans are visual people who primarily react based on emotion without always fully delving into the facts before making a judgement. It is important to remember that we do not know at this time who is responsible for the gassing.
According to International Law, there are only three reasons for permissible use of military force:
- Prevention of the invasion of country's borders and to subdue invaders.
- One U.N. state coming to the aid of another being invaded.
- Limited purpose invasions when approved by U.N.
None of these apply to the Syrian situation.
According to the "just war" principles of the Church:
- Damage inflicted by aggressor on the nation must be lasting, grave, and certain
- All other means of putting an end must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective
- Must be serious prospects of success
- Use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. (Our current modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.)
These conditions also do not apply to Syria.
-"The President and his administration appear willing to employ lethal means even if those means aren't likely to accomplish any discernible end." - Stephen P. White of The Ethics and Public Policy Center
-"The President and his administration appear willing to employ lethal means even if those means aren't likely to accomplish any discernible end." - Stephen P. White of The Ethics and Public Policy Center
In closing, consider that George W. Bush was strongly opposed only two presidential terms ago for his retaliation of chemical warfare abroad by many of the politicians currently supporting this aerial attack. As well, it is inconclusive as to what the outcome or effects bombing Syria would have on Syria or the world at large. Iran has threatened military action against the US and China and Russia have clearly opposed the decision to bomb Syria. What is currently being promised as strictly an aerial attack may quickly escalate to a ground war and put American lives in danger abroad and possibly in this country if bombs were returned.
Would US Intervention in Syria Be a Just War?
This is a great idea!
ReplyDelete