Our very selective outrage over "moral obscenities" [View all]

[markpkessinger]

Last edited Tue Aug 27, 2013, 10:50 PM - Edit history (2)

Let us stipulate at the outset that the chemical attack in Syria was heinous, whomever the responsible party might be. Yes, indeed, it was, as Secretary Kerry put it, a "moral obscenity." But here's the thing: such "moral obscenities" occur all the time throughout the world. Indeed, was it not a moral obscenity when the Egyptian military slaughtered hundreds of Egyptian civilians just a couple of weeks ago? Yet there was no rush to respond and precious few calling it out as some "moral obscenity." Not to mention, has not the U.S. committed a few of its own moral obscenities in recent years? Are not the deaths of innocent bystanders killed by U.S. drones also a moral obscenity? Yet I see few calls to hold the U.S. accountable for its own morally obscene actions.

The very selective nature of Secretary Kerry's moral outrage is itself a "moral obscenity." It was invoked for the singular purpose of banging the war drums, to pave the way for yet another instance of U.S. military adventurism in the Middle East. Those who support this misguided venture should ask themselves this question: given the utterly abysmal record of "accomplishment" whenever the U.S. has intervened in the internal strife of Middle Eastern countries, what possible basis do you have for thinking intervening in Syria would result in any positive outcome whatsoever?