Yesterday, President Barack Obama delivered a speech urging Americans to consider a targeted military strike on Bashar al-Assad's regime. The president claimed that there was substantial evidence implicating Assad and his regime in a lethal chemical strike on opposition forces in Syrian neighborhoods. They continued firing gas rockets at these neighborhoods on the days following the attack (2:50 - 3:30). According to Obama, Assad's recent attacks have not only violated international crime laws against humanity but also continue to threaten our national security interests (1:35, 4:15). Members of the Obama administration have attempted diplomatic negotiations with Syrian allies. The president has also made clear that he would find peaceful solutions before initiating force on the Assad regime.
Obama has laid out plans for Congress to decide for or against a targeted military strike on Assad's regime; which seek to "deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime's ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use" (5:30 - 5:43). Yet, Assad's regime may be incapable to present a serious threat to the U.S. military or to initiate any other kind of retaliation that would be any different from the threats that the U.S. receives on a daily basis (8:45 - 9:06). Moreover, Reuters recently published an article in which the Foreign Minister of Syria Walid al-Moualem, in cooperation with his Russian allies, said, "'We want to join the convention on the prohibition of chemical weapons. We are ready to observe our obligations in accordance with that convention, including providing all information about these weapons'" ("Syria vows to give up chemical weapons, no deal yet at the U.N."). The author also quoted Russian President Vladimir Putin so as to say that his weapons plan with Syria would only work if the Obama administration and U.S. allies were willing to "rule out military action."
Could the Obama administration's refusal to step down from its weighty military actions cause another World War? Should the Obama administration decide for or against military intervention in the Middle East? This article will outline, from a natural law perspective, an ethical framework for deciding for or against wartime resolutions under strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force, or the "just war" doctrine as it is called. In order for the Obama administration to correctly exercise the right of lawful self-defense, the following four conditions need to be met simultaneously:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶ 2309)
If the Obama administration's supposed intentions and actions for defending the country from Assad's regime fall in line with all four conditions outlined by the "just war" doctrine, and if there is sufficient evidence for the claims about the threats Assad's regime presents to the United States' national security interests, then the Obama administration would indeed be accomplishing its purpose in defending the country in lawful self-defense. If not, the Obama administration will seriously undermine the country's moral credibility on an international scale, as well as engender further hatred against the U.S. by the Middle East and jeopardize the fundamental rights and safety of our country. Only upon serious contemplation and reflection on the matter can we decide in favor of a bright future for our country.
No comments:
Post a Comment