Syria: The case for inaction

[Dayuhan]

there is not a day in the history of the human race that has been without war in some part of the world.

Certainly true, but even if the existence of war in some place is the default condition of the human race, that's no reason for any given nation to select war as the default mechanism for dealing with problems, especially other people's problems. For the US at this time, I'd suggest that the default approach to other people's fights is to not get involved. Certainly that default could be overridden in sufficiently compelling circumstances, but it doesn't need justification. There's no need to present a case for non-involvement in other people's wars. The burden of justification is on those who want to get involved.

A nation that selected military involvement as the default response to every mess on the planet would find that position unsustainable, and would have to desist or collapse. Nobody has the resources for that.

No war anywhere would certainly be an aberration, but we don't need that. We just need no war involving us, a quite different thing. Arguably that's an aberration as well, but that's no less reason to try to get there.

[Fuchs]

No, it's not true.
It's said that immediately after VJ-day (1945) there were 26 days of 100% world peace until some conflict flared up in SE Asia.

That's beside the point anyway. Switzerland has been at peace for hundreds of years; a conflict in Rwanda for example doesn't mean that war is normal, peace is not normal.

War is destructive, not productive and this coupled with mankind's survival proves that war cannot be normal. It's the deviation from normal.


JTF; point being, one better not give a blank check or other kind of support to an aggressive ally. In fact, an aggressive neighbour who insists on bullying small powers may very well be a problem, not the solution to one's security challenges.