Fact Checking Sect. Kerry's 'Moral Compass' Speech

Secretary of State Kerry said that anyone that believes Syrian rebels would use nerve agent on civilians instead of the government should check their 'moral compass'. Yes it may be true that a government rather than citizens might be motivated to victimize so many generally, yet in the case of an international legion of terrorists from across the Sunni world we cannot be so certain.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23883427

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/world/middleeast/syria.html?_r=0

Al Qaeda is active in the Syrian conflict as well as other terrorist groups and there are not known to be recalcitrant over creating civilian casualties. One's moral compass may point to the World Trade Center 9-11-2001 as well as the Pentagon as examples of terrorist attacks on civilians. With the largely Sunni development of suicide bombs in the Middle East that has proliferated across the world mostly targeting civilians it is difficult for a moral compass to ignore that direction. Thousands and thousands in Iraq were killed by suicide bombings and very likely terrorist groups exploiting utilitarian and pragmatic rules would decide that sacrificing a few thousand civilians to get the United States to hand victory to them would be worth the cost.

It is also possible that some terrorist groups don't really care so much for Syrians since they aren't from Syria. It is rather instructive that Sect. Kerry has so much respect for the moral compass of terrorists that he does not consider it possible that they could get and use nerve agent on civilians in Syria, yet I am not so sure myself.

When competent and complete investigation of the cause of the use of nerve agent in the Damascus suburb is present then direct legal action with international force ought to be taken. Pitching horseshoes for causus belli of interventionist conflict isn't so good after the fact if it turns out the approximate and uncertain reason for entering into a non-proximal to U.S. interest conflict was wrong.

http://news.yahoo.com/kerry--u-s--will-respond-to-%E2%80%98moral-obscenity%E2%80%99-of-syria-massacre--193453624.html

Sect. Kerry is of a billionaire family that is a member of the global plutocracy. They tend to view the world through their own values of where what is good for-themselves is good for the poor and middle class. Russia has about 75 billionaires with a GDP of only 1.2 trillion dollars. It is understandable that President Putin has found it tough to reign in an incipient oligarchy. Public interest requires that government look out for the 150 million non-billionaire Russians as well as to serve the very few. The U.S.A. has more than 400 billionaires and China about 100. These are very influential people in business and politics that may preclude political developments that would tax or conflict with their class interests of collecting rents and consolidating wealth. Too often the environment is not protected, conserved or restored because of the influence of oligarchs.

Sect. Kerry finds civilian casualties in Syria from chemical weapons a 'moral obscenity' yet to those wound and killed by explosives and conventional weapons to a similar extent the difference between non-obscenity and obscenity is rather vague. For some all casualties of war are the obscenity rather than those killed by a particular kind of weapon.

War crimes and conventions defining war crimes do exist and respect for rule of law on those international agreements should be used instead of kangaroo court edicts by the most powerful that may or may not have a record of trustworthiness. If it becomes evident that a plain and substantive use of chemical weapons is the real policy of the Syrian or any other government in an existing war than there ought to be real time to react. That standard has just not been met in Iraq, and it is wrong to stipulate vague standards that anyone may try to get under or frame up to meet in order to precipitate international intervention of one side.

Watching the war may make Sect. Kerry feel a little like an N.F.L. referee that should intervene whenever he sees a foul. Yet that paradigm is perhaps a wrong perspective by which to view world events and the Syrian civil war. It is at any rate a little uncomfortable to consider such a policy if the U.S.A. were not the most powerful nation militarily on Earth considering the intervention. What if it was China choosing where and when to intervene and what sort of government to depose?