Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
The Syrian Attack Remains Unethical: Here is Why

The Syrian Attack Remains Unethical: Here is Why

Last updated on: April 14, 2018 at 5:51 pm by John Mark N. Reynolds

The Syrian Attack Remains Unethical: Here is Why 2018-04-14T17:51:01-04:00 John Mark N. Reynolds

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I Christians prefer peace to war. We do not rush to war as the first solution or because killing might improve things. In fact, Christians helped create an academic discussion around where force can be justified.

The use of force in Syria cannot be justified. Many people do not even try very hard. They shoot missiles as easily as they shoot off their mouths. Their reasoning runs this way:

1. Assad is very bad man.

2. Assad used chemical weapons.

Conclusion: We are justified in attacking Syria.

This seems sensible (who wants to defend that monster Assad?) until we think a bit harder. Of course, Assad is bad, but who is better that can lead Syria? If you kill one monster and so unleash the Kraken (think ISIS), then you have made things worse and killed people yourself.

This is the very model of a modern moral muddle.

Nobody is proposing the United States invade Syria and so provide that nation with a just government. Why? Nobody can name a Syrian regime that would be better (especially to religious minorities in Syria) than the Assad regime. When we destablalize the Assad regime by killing people, we are not going to get a better state, we almost are sure to get a worse one.

We should not support the Assad regime, of course. He is a bad man, but we need not support his foes who are just as bad or worse. You can oppose one bad thing without supporting another.

As a result, some of those who do care about making moral choices, but wish to justify attacking Syria, have shifted the terms of debate.

Thank God for this, since new justifications are at least a recognition that revenge is not a good reason for a Christian to engage in violence. Nobody elected us “world policeman” (as that great softie Ronald Reagan pointed out). Syria or an alternative Syrian state (better than Assad) is not asking for our help, so we all agree that we have no particular duty to police Syria.

This does not mean being silent. We can use moral authority and must. We cannot ignore the moral atrocities of the Assad regime. We should condemn them. If there were better people to support, we should do so. There is not, so we condemn and wait for better choices.

A few people have asked why I have been writing that we must do something about race in the US, but am advocating not acting in Syria. I am advocating acting in Syria. Moral condemnation from a nation like the US is powerful. We have a lot of bandwidth in the world and people listen. Humanitarian aid is a soft use of power. We must feed and educate a new Syria. Using violence is a higher bar to cross ethically and requires that things are almost certain to be better at the end of the violence.

Nobody suggests that ending racism in US banking requires sending drones over Wall Street. We could enforce some civil rights laws more effectively.

Yet there is a better argument, even a thoughtful one, for the morality of hitting Assad. This argument says that regime change in Syria would be worse, but we need to bloody Assad’s nose so we get a better behaved Assad. He will not kill scores of people using chemical weapons if we attack. Of course, we will allowe him to kill scores of people using massive conventional weapons, but let’s accept the assumption that for some reason chemical weapons of mass destruction are worse than weapons of mass destruction like bombs that work chemically. If Assad stops using chemical weapons (assuming he has), then we will have a better Assad as a result of our attacks.

I am not sure the facts here are all true, but let’s accept all the premises:

1. Our goal in Syria is to wage war to get a better Assad.

2. We need to do this, because chemical weapons are worse than equally powerful conventional weapons.

3. If we let Assad use chemical weapons (again!), then other people killing people using conventional weapons will kill people using chemical weapons.

Ronald Reagan bombed Libya, scared the strong man there, and got a better Libya. President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton overthrew the strong man and got a worse Libya. We are teaching Assad to be a better Assad.

This is, however, a very weak justification.

It assumes our massive airstrikes will teach Assad a lesson and deter him from using chemical weapons. He will be afraid of our power.

Maybe. Or perhaps he will see that Russia is his only reliable friend, that you can tell when the US is going to strike by commercial aircraft patterns, and so you can always move your stuff. We will punch him hard, but then stop. He will still be in power and Putin will be there.

Even worse, we have allied with Britain and France. Unlike the careful work done by Bush and Jim Baker in other conflicts, there are no Orthodox or Islamic powers in the attack. This lets Russia posture as picking up her historic role of defending Syria from Crusader powers. The Christians in Syria do not like the Crusades any better than the Muslims as they ware seen as undermining the Eastern Roman (Christian Byzantine) Empire. In Ottoman days (still remembered in Syria), the Russians checked Turkish power for the sake of religious minorities in Syria. French and British power (sound familiar?) were often on the other side. (Google Crimean War.)

The Turks are back in Syria and nobody is bombing them. The Western “great powers” are now taking on Russians who help Syrians again. Is this fair? Maybe not, but we have blundered into historic patterns in a region with long memories.

Assad survives. Today is a new day in Damascus and Assad is going to work. Compared to the devastation of the Civil War in Syria, we appear to have done little. Russia remains. Nobody expects Syria or Russia to attack US navy ships or planes as that would invite “boots on the ground.” Our actions far from putting Assad in a box, seem just as likely to encourage support for Putin and Assad in Syria.

They survived. They can go on winning the Civil War with conventional weapons. We used expensive missiles to wipe out facilities for chemical weapons which are cheap to make and rebuild. (Assuming we know where those facilities are. See Iraq War.) If Assad wants to use them in a year or so, then he knows he can if he is willing to lose some people and facilities. Of course, he will be warned ahead of time.

Being both impotent and unjust in a use of force is hard, but we may have achieved it. We bombed people with inadequate justification. Why? The best justification is that it will make the tyrant behave, but it is at least as plausible that it will not. If so, there is nothing much we can do without invading Syria.

What should we do?

We should bide our time, condemn Assad and Putin when we can. We should support better people with humanitarian aid and education. There are no other good options, so we wait.

Culture

Politics

Previous Post

April 12, 2018

On Racism and Communal “Guilt”

Next Post

April 14, 2018 The Christian Case Against the Christian Case for the Strikes on Syria

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Apologetics Art Culture Education On Books On Education Philosophy Politics Pop Culture Spiritual Reflections Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 July 2025 June 2025 September 2024 July 2024 June 2024 December 2023 June 2023 September 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What did Jesus say about worrying about tomorrow?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Do not worry Worry every day Ignore today Plan for every detail

Books by This Author John Mark Reynolds

See All Titles »