On Monday night 60 people gathered in front of Tammy Baldwin’s office to request her to vote “no” against any military option against Syria for alleged gas attacks that murdered thousands of innocents.
Using evidence that has yet to meet the standard “beyond a shadow of doubt” [President Barack] Obama and others prove ready to exercise an option that could lead to more of the same. What is the moral argument that holds this loss of life less atrocious than by any other means? Why did we not punish the rebels for using gas?
Moreover, how could any military strike not expand into greater conflict in an area of the world where violence and extremism is ubiquitous as sand and oil?
For this reason I joined Monday’s impromptu pro-life gathering. Conceivably, a military action could degrade into regime changing efforts that would force my son into war. His parents are very motivated to hinder such a development. We have personally witnessed the emotional anguish faced by military families. We do not feel invested in supporting war.
We would rather see the role of “anchor of the world’s security” be re-casted into promoter of international cooperation and advocate of efforts to maximize human potential.
We cannot afford to get weighed down in derisory and toxic arguments of moral purity from an undeserved position of self-righteousness.
Interested in getting your voice heard? Would you like to submit a letter to the editor? Please send all letter submissions to edit@dailycardinal.com.
