I fully agree it would be better if the US stopped making moral pronouncements and focused on its interests. I would also argue those interests include moral interests - like carrying out humanitarian interventions when feasible - as well as strategic ones. These moral interests are not rooted in universal values (I'm not sure there's any such thing), but in American values, the belief of American leaders that a particular atrocity is "not right," and that they can do something about it without undermining strategic interests.
The US can't save everyone, but putting its power behind moral causes in some cases and not others is better than only defending strategic interests. There are also cases where strategic and moral interests intersect. I would argue Gaza is one such place - the US has a strategic interest in weakening Iran via one of its proxies, and a moral interest in helping Israel destroy the barbarians of Hamas (also good for Palestinians in the long term). I would also argue that, all these years after Obama foolishly declined to enforce his red line, weakening Assad (both because of his cruelty and his alliance with Russia and Iran) is a strategic and moral interest of the US. It may never happen, but if an opportunity arises to help anti-Assad Syrians with defensive weapons, offensive weapons, and air and missile strikes, I want the US to take advantage of that opportunity.
The two red lines you suggested are not the same. The Obama administration knew that Assad had used chemical weapons against his own people, and it was idiotic posturing to claim a red line and then not follow through, but that’s what the progressives’ foreign policy is about - not to advance US interests, but to virtue signal to their domestic audience. Progressives could care less if the statute of the US is weakened, it is one of their goals. They simply do not like US power and feel like totalitarian powers doing awful things (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea) must be due to the US, because other countries couldn’t possibly have agency, and only the US can do morally wrong things. Obama never intended to hold any totalitarian power to account, and he followed through by being weak on Assad, Russia, Iran, North Korea and China.
With regards to Rafah, the Biden administration knew there was not going to be massive civilian casualties in the operation, and in fact there aren’t. What they were doing is once again signaling to a domestic audience of progressive and far leftist shitbags. The progressives in Biden’s administration come from the Obama administration. They don’t care about the standing of the US, nor the survival of its allies. They still see US power as ‘bad’ the violence of totalitarian countries as some just response to the US, the only country with agency, allegedly. It’s “US Bad” foreign policy all over again. Israel, and Biden knows this, has done less civilian casualties than NATO, but it’s all about gifting his progressive wing what they really want - the survival of Hamas by any means, and some abuse for Israel.
I agree. I'd be much more willing to approve or disapprove on war if I was told the truth. Made-up Example: We would like to go to war because our nation runs on X and we are running low. This will put us in a position to have to beg for these resources. Would you all like to give them up or go get them? The End.
I fully agree it would be better if the US stopped making moral pronouncements and focused on its interests. I would also argue those interests include moral interests - like carrying out humanitarian interventions when feasible - as well as strategic ones. These moral interests are not rooted in universal values (I'm not sure there's any such thing), but in American values, the belief of American leaders that a particular atrocity is "not right," and that they can do something about it without undermining strategic interests.
The US can't save everyone, but putting its power behind moral causes in some cases and not others is better than only defending strategic interests. There are also cases where strategic and moral interests intersect. I would argue Gaza is one such place - the US has a strategic interest in weakening Iran via one of its proxies, and a moral interest in helping Israel destroy the barbarians of Hamas (also good for Palestinians in the long term). I would also argue that, all these years after Obama foolishly declined to enforce his red line, weakening Assad (both because of his cruelty and his alliance with Russia and Iran) is a strategic and moral interest of the US. It may never happen, but if an opportunity arises to help anti-Assad Syrians with defensive weapons, offensive weapons, and air and missile strikes, I want the US to take advantage of that opportunity.
The two red lines you suggested are not the same. The Obama administration knew that Assad had used chemical weapons against his own people, and it was idiotic posturing to claim a red line and then not follow through, but that’s what the progressives’ foreign policy is about - not to advance US interests, but to virtue signal to their domestic audience. Progressives could care less if the statute of the US is weakened, it is one of their goals. They simply do not like US power and feel like totalitarian powers doing awful things (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea) must be due to the US, because other countries couldn’t possibly have agency, and only the US can do morally wrong things. Obama never intended to hold any totalitarian power to account, and he followed through by being weak on Assad, Russia, Iran, North Korea and China.
With regards to Rafah, the Biden administration knew there was not going to be massive civilian casualties in the operation, and in fact there aren’t. What they were doing is once again signaling to a domestic audience of progressive and far leftist shitbags. The progressives in Biden’s administration come from the Obama administration. They don’t care about the standing of the US, nor the survival of its allies. They still see US power as ‘bad’ the violence of totalitarian countries as some just response to the US, the only country with agency, allegedly. It’s “US Bad” foreign policy all over again. Israel, and Biden knows this, has done less civilian casualties than NATO, but it’s all about gifting his progressive wing what they really want - the survival of Hamas by any means, and some abuse for Israel.
I agree. I'd be much more willing to approve or disapprove on war if I was told the truth. Made-up Example: We would like to go to war because our nation runs on X and we are running low. This will put us in a position to have to beg for these resources. Would you all like to give them up or go get them? The End.