[COLUMN] Bombing Syria Would Violate Just War Theory

What does it say about President Barack Obama that the only time he has really reached out to Congress, especially the Republicans, with any real energy, was when he wanted to kill more people? He has become the most blood-thirsty Nobel Peace Prize winner in world history.

If I were a Democrat, which, fortunately, I would never fall in with that unsavory crowd, I would feel betrayed by Obama. He sold himself as a man of peace. He said he was opposed to the war in Iraq. He was opposed to the U.S. prison in Cuba.

He told the Boston Globe in December 2007, in writing with time to consider his words: “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

His position on the Iraq war and the war on terror were two things he said during his 2008 campaign with which I agreed and actually believed.

Of course, in the end, it was nothing but pure rhetoric on his part. More lies to add to his bundle of broken promises. His anti-war rhetoric went out the window on Jan. 20, 2009, along with his promises of bipartisanship and transparency.

Even more disturbing than Obama’s forked tongue is the fact that he is choosing to side with al-Qaida terrorists over the legal and stable regime in Syria. Has he forgotten that al-Qaida is at war with us?

Nor has the administration demonstrated to the people of the United States that it was Syrian government that used the sarin gas. Think about it. One rule of journalism is to follow the money. In other words, ask who benefits the most from an action.

Syrian President Dr. Bashar Hafez al-Assad is not a stupid man. He was well aware of the dangers of using chemical weapons. Why would he risk the anger of the West by gassing people when, from a military standpoint, it served no legitimate function. His army is handling the civil war nicely without chemical weapons. The rebels, without help from the outside, stand very little hope of actually overthrowing al-Assad.

Conversely, the rebels have the most to gain by a chemical attack blamed on the government. If I were a rebel commander, I would have staged a chemical attack and blamed the administration as a way of getting the United States and other Western powers to do the job the rebel forces have been unable to accomplish.

When Congress returns Monday and begins debate, it should remember that our involvement in Syria would violate the Just War Theory. We should never go to war unless it is just.

Basically, in order for a war to be just, the parties involved must have just cause; the war must be declared by a proper authority; the participants must possess the right intention; there must be a reasonable chance of success; and the end must be proportional to the means used.

What it really boils down to in a modern sense is that in order for war to be just, it essentially has to be one of self-defense or the legitimate defense of others. And if entered upon, the objective of the war should not be to punish one side or the other, but, instead, reach peace. And that goal should be achievable. It is unjust to ask men and women to die in a futile mission.

Which brings us to, perhaps, the best question asked in the whole debate thus far.

In 1971, John Kerry, in his Navy uniform, asked on the floor of the U.S. Senate, “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”

Last week, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul said, “I would ask John Kerry how can you ask a man to be the first one to die for a mistake?”

Kerry’s response?

“We don’t believe we are going to go war in the classic sense.” I guess Kerry means this is just a “police action.” The terms change, but the political shell game stays the same.

The post [COLUMN] Bombing Syria Would Violate Just War Theory appeared first on Light of Liberty.