Essentially, what we are hearing is this:
- There is such a thing as a just war.
- Waging such wars is essential to the preservation or creation of some great good.
- Once a population stops a leader from an unjust war, it is likely that
- The population will oppose a future just war
- Bad guys will think that they are safe because our nation will not wage a future just war.
- THEREFORE: We must go ahead and wage this unjust war.
Essentially, the Just War tradition is being used to justify waging unjust war.
The definition of “just war” has already been demonstrated to be far too broad over the last twelve years or so (or perhaps 212!) but this is even worse.
Of course, these enemies of civilization who hold positions of authority in Conservative media and the GOP are completely ignoring the fact that they are siding with anti-Christian, Jihadi, heart-eating, live-girl-dismembering terrorist Sunnis against minority Christians, Shiites, etc. Bashar al-Assad is a brutal killer, which is precisely how he managed to impose pluralism and tolerance on that region. Al Qaeda has always hated his secular regime. We have had lots of brutal killers as allies before—like, for instance, Assad, who helped us by torturing some of the suspects we sent to him less than a decade ago. I’m not approving any of this but just pointing out the hypocrisy.
Our meddling in affairs that are not our business has likely already placed deadly chemical weapons in the hands of Al Qaeda affiliates. US foreign policy has made us more vulnerable, not safer.
But even if all that were not true, obviously this argument for “credibility” essentially justifies anything. It is nothing more than a rationalization for homicide.<>
