If the U.S. has the right arbitrarily to attack any country it wants, doesn’t everyone? Would that be a world advantageous to the average American?
We assert the right to launch wars of aggression against anyone we perceive as bad. Now, one must admit, many of our targets are bad, but then so are some of our “best friends.” More to the point, we “assert the right” whether or not anyone has attacked or even threatened us, whether or not anyone poses a real threat against us, and regardless of any considerations of international law.
And we further posit that our behavior is neither terrorism nor aggression.
Therefore, it logically follows that when an adversary of the U.S. asserts the right to attack us, that also cannot be called terrorism or aggression.
That, as an American citizen, does not make me feel comfortable.
Far be it from me to claim that Syria’s Assad retains any moral right to remain in power, any more than Saddam or Netanyahu or Bush or any other aggressor. But I do claim this: wars of choice started by the U.S. in recent memory have made the situation worse – both for the civilian population of the countries the U.S. chose to attack and for the average American.
Some politicians will make hay from any war against Syria that the U.S. launches, and some CEOs will make money. But where is the evidence that the world will be the better for it?