Part 1: The morality (or lack thereof) of war. Is there are moral reason to invade Syria?
As I hope many of you are aware, the Pentagon has taken steps to prepare for war against Syria and Obama is considering ordering a strike.


Now as a self-proclaimed non-interventionist, who opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is against almost all foreign aid, thinks the US spends way too much on their military, and has even gone as far as arguing that the US shouldn't have intervened in World War 2 (I've been iffy on this one).


The non-interventionist in me is 100% opposed to this war: my current fb status is a 410 word argument explaining why we shouldn't invade Syria. My last 2 tweets are links to articles (one from Reason, one from Reuters) which take a similar stance. I was one of the first to like the fb page 'I Bet I Can Find 10 Million People Opposed To War On Syria'. My last 2 political debates with friends (both with different people), have been about this topic.


While my recent track record on the internet (which given how rarely I use social media devices, all of this happened 48 hours ago) shows full opposition to this potential war, I am not as opposed to this war as I have appeared.


As some of you know, I am an avid reader of The Economist, reading most issues and a fair amount of the articles in each issue.


Their newest issue (which hasn't been released as of writing this) has a cover with a close up of Assad and the title 'Hit him hard'. Clearly referencing their view on the situation.


As a huge fan of The Economist, I take their views into consideration on most issues and quite honestly, as much as I hate to admit it, kind of agree with them.


The Economist is normally rational and their articles are normally opinionated based on the beliefs of their editors. Over the last few years, The Economist has taken a Realpolitik stance on politics and foreign policy;
They advocate sending more foreign aid to Vietnam, despite its poor track record on human rights, on the grounds that Vietnam is the strongest anti-Chinese country in the region.
They advocate for war on Syria; not because Assad is a brutal dictator; not because gassing your citizens is wrong; not because 12,000 lives have been lost in this civil war, but as a show of strength and a warning against other potential enemies.
There are probably other examples of realpolitik by the economist, but I can't think of any.


The Economist fears that if we let Assad get away with using WMDs, Iran and North Korea will be more aggressive towards their nuclear programs. Since Obama has stated that the use of chemical weapons is a red line, if he doesn't punish Assad for using them, he will be viewed as a weak pushover to the international community.


This is especially concerning given that Iran; one of two anti-American nations currently developing a nuclear missile program has just had a change in leadership. President Rouhani has in the past stated that he is willing to negotiate with America on ending their nuclear program; he may reconsider that stance if he believes that Iran can get away with developing WMDs.


I’m not being entirely fair to the Economist here, I’ve intentionally made it look like they’re a neocon paper with immoral reasons for supporting the war.


To phrase it nicer, the reasons to going to war are utilitarian; 12,000+ people have died in this civil war, and ending it could save thousands more lives. Chemical weapons are a WMD banned by the UN and international law, if we don’t punish those who violate international laws regarding combat, then why bother having them? And most importantly (and alluded to earlier) not punishing the use of WMDs may encourage others to use them, which could result in millions of deaths, as opposed to just thousands.


As I will explain later, I don’t view realpolitik as immoral, so by making it look like the only justification of war is realpolitik, I’m not completely slamming The Economist, or others who share similar views.


To answer the above question: Is there a moral argument to invade?
Yes! However there is also a moral argument not to invade. Morality and ethics, being entirely an opinion issue means that a moral argument can be made for anything.


Overall whether or not to support the war is based on your views on ethics and morals:
A very brief and simplistic view on whether or not war is justified:
Ethics:
Utilitarian
We should go to war because this war will save lives in the long run
We shouldn't go to war because this war will not save lives in the long run
Deontology
We should go to war because our enemy is evil and we must stop him.
We shouldn't go to war because violence is wrong, and so violence, even if its in the name of ending violence, is wrong.


So, as the title of this piece states, is violence ever justified? And to look at Syria in particular, is invading Syria justifiable?