In my earlier post today, I said I’d signed the petition to Obama not to try to deal with chemical weapons in Syria by bombing.
The Economist today published an argument for limited strikes, on the grounds that doing nothing in response to the chemical attacks that killed hundreds and injured thousands will eventually lead to more of the same.
It’s a measured reasoning which one cannot call war-mongering or even unreasonable. Actually, it represents the kind of reasoning that has influenced my own thoughts every time I think of Nazi Germany.
I think now we have to find other ways than brute strength and military might to fight for even such important issues as the use of chemical weapons.
But the Economist’s position deserves to be taken seriously and answered with respect by those of us who don’t agree with them. Because the results of whatever decisions are made will effect millions of people. It’s worth struggling as hard as we can to be right.
Feeling righteous isn’t enough.