When we hear objections about the proposed punishment of Syria by targeted and limited bombing, we hear the litany of isolationism and the dangers of involvement in the Middle East. No one addresses the issue of whether the use of chemical weapons should be punished  or that unprecedented brutality should be opposed.  And we hear recriminations about the war in Iraq and how that has to be avoided at all costs.

You have to be pragmatic about war, and consequences matter, but is it possible that a circumscribed air attack on military targets is the ethical response to the brutal actions of the Assad regime in Syria? No one wants to address this, as if it were the last consideration of going to war. Or some want to make this proposed air strike equivalent to putting boots on the ground in Iraq.

Yes, consequences matter, but an ethical choice usually comes with risk, and the risks of action should be weighed against the risks of inaction. Risk by itself is not an argument sufficient to negate an ethical choice.

We wanted to be left alone prior to 9/11/2001, but then we found out there were  those who would not leave us alone.  We found out isolationism was a myth. So began the war on terrorism, which continues today. In Afghanistan we have tried to respond ethically by the counter-insurgency. We have tried to rehabilitate the political, educational and military institutions of Afghanistan, because we realized it was a breeding ground for our enemies.  History will judge how successful we have been.

But the lesson of this century has been that we are not safe as an isolated country, and we can not rehabilitate societies by our isolated effort.  We are both responsible and not responsible for the abuses beyond our borders, and we have to act and hold back from action with equal discretion.

The proposed attack on military targets in Syria is one such choice, and President Obama has proposed a plan that honors both intervention and restraint.  It is an ethical plan, not a politically expeditious plan, and that is what the opponents don’t seem to get.  They want reduce it to an “Obama-Plan” or “What’s-in-it-for-us?”  Plan. Even the Arab states are holding back, when they should be leading the charge against Assad. There’s not enough in it for them.

We are at a point in history  when nothing gets judged by its potential for good or evil.  We are all about consequences, even consequences we can’t foresee.  It is fine to see this proposed action as unethical, because of its potential for human carnage, but very few in opposition have taken that position.  They are all about preserving our own society and avoiding entanglements. I wish they had felt that way in 2001.

The ethics of opposing an absolute evil are at stake in Syria, and I wish the discussion would focus on that and not the p0litical agendas of opposing President Obama or the illusion of isolationism.  Refusing to get the point of the argument is to dodge the responsibility to act ethically.