Confronting Evil -- Analysis of American Intervention in the Syrian Conflict

Many years ago I tried to express my feelings about relations between different societies, countries, or individuals from different cultures.   It went something like this:

Celebrate that which is different.

Learn from that which is new and unexpected.

Respect that which you cannot understand.

Tolerate things which to you are merely unpleasant.

Confront that which is evil.

--

The world struggle against facism in the middle of the 20^th century is the clearest example of confronting evil.  World War II has been called “The Good War”.   World War II was the greatest military conflict in history; it cost a staggering number of lives and the devastation of a continent.  But the war ended (at least for our generation) the notion of world subjugation by any people or ideology.   The war ended a campaign of conquest, torture, and genocide on a massive scale not seen before on earth.

--

In recent years, America has embarked on two wars under the justification (in principle, at least) of confronting evil.   The result of those wars has been over a decade of human misery in the afflicted countries.   In Iraq, over 100,000 Iraqis have died, and over 4500 United States soldiers.  About four million people were made homeless or refugees, and one million children lost one or both parents.  Civil society, infrastructure, secular education, culture, and museums were devastated.  And the fundamental basis for the American war against Iraq – that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction – was false.

--

As a youth, I had a different formulation of the ethics of war.  As a child of the Vietnam era, I wrote letters to a soldier in Vietnam, until a Sunday newspaper carried the name of my correspondent in the weekly list of the dead. 

By age 14, I understood that war was a cooperative act, made possible only through the willing participation of a majority of people in society.   Each person makes an individual choice to participate in war; without collective participation, war could not exist.   As a youth, fresh from reading Henry David Thoreau, it seemed to me that war could be ended by common consensus if most people made the ethical choice to refuse to participate.

As an adult I understand that not enough people make that choice.  War will not be ended by conscientious objectors.

--

America is now on the brink of another conflict in the Middle East.  President Barack Obama declared that the use of chemical weapons was a “red line”, which would draw the United States into the conflict.  Chemical weapons have clearly been used in an attack against a rebel neighborhood, killing and wounding a large number of people, including children.  Chemical weapons are a particular and recognized evil due to the indiscriminate and devestating damage caused to the victims (including non-combatants and civilians).  Chemical weapons were banned by the Hague Peace conventions in 1899 and 1907, by the Geneva Protocol in 1925, following World War I, and by numerous subsequent international agreements.

--

Is this use of chemical weapons sufficient to demand an American military response?  

To me, the first question is whether the attack was genuinely an act of the Syrian government.  In the prior conflict in Iraq, the United States stupidly acted on mis-information about weapons of mass destruction.  This mis-information was probably provided by opponents of Saddam Hussein, and those who later benefited from the chaos of war.  Could the most recent use of chemical weapons in Syria be a ruse, conducted by rebels or by rogue elements of the Syrian military?  Certainly.   There is not sufficient evidence of government involvement to justify entry into this conflict.

--

In a broader sense, however, what logic should govern decisions about entry into war to confront evil? 

The first principle is certainty.   In my life, I have often assumed the worst about something or someone, only to discover later (sometimes much later) that I was mistaken.  By the time I realize my error, my angry response has already caused damage to a relationship, a child, a stranger, or a loved one.   How much worse when the error is committed by a nation, when the undeserved retaliation is measured in death and destruction!   To confront wrong-doing or evil requires certainty “beyond a reasonable doubt” about the crime, exactly as in an American court of law.

Secondly, the consequences of action or inaction must be considered.    What is the likelihood that an evil act will be repeated?   If evil is allowed to persist without confrontation, will it grow and spread, as facism in the 20^th century?   Or is the evil something limited, incapable of growing into a larger threat?   Is the evil something that can change and disappear through discussion and diplomacy?  Distinguishing the nature and future path of an immoral government is critical to the decision to confront evil.

Finally, confronting evil must not create a greater evil.  Results matter.  The “limited police action” of the early 1960’s in Vietnam resulted in a war lasting a decade, with no change in the ultimate political outcome in the country.  The quick and simple “regime change” expected in Iraq resulted in devastation to a society, as noted above.  

 Violent conflict is unpredictable and contagious.  Any country entering into war to confront evil must be certain that the resulting society will be peaceful and better for the people than if no intervention occurred. 

The Syrian conflict fails each of these three tests.   The facts are not certain; the future behavior of the Assad regime is not clear; and the result of intervention might result in a greater evil.  Military intervention at this time is not justified.

--

At the present time, a negotiated settlement seems possible.  The negotiated settlement would prevent future use of chemical weapons, and avoid an American attack.  It may be that Barack Obama expected this result, and played a game of brinksmanship to achieve this goal.  Nevertheless, it seems to me a bad idea to present an ultimatum. At some point, a threat may have to be carried out, with all of the consequences that entails.

---
Edited -- A later analysis of the Syrian conflict can be found on my blog for science, economics and policy, here:  http://dougrobbins.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-syrian-civil-war.html