Just thinking while driving to work this morning (yes it is Sunday).
100,000 Syrians are killed with conventional weapons and no action is required. 1,400 are killed with chemical weapons and this requires a military response. I do not understand the moral logic.
The key question is whether it is morally required or even acceptable to commit the American military for humanitarian reasons rather than strategic reasons. We did this in Kosovo, but the question remains. This should be the domain of the United Nations but that body has been hijacked by the very humanitarian criminals we should be protecting the world against.
The UN failed to stop the carnage in Rwanda. Should the US have acted unilaterally there? At what point does a moral commitment stumble upon the reality of physical limitations? How do we allocate military power in a world filled with moral vacuums? If we drain limited resources for humanitarian purposes does it create a bigger threat by reducing our capability to respond to distinct strategic threats?
With great power comes responsibility: if you reject that responsibility you may sacrifice your power in the bargain.
You can not lead from behind when there is nobody in front of you.
Recent Comments