Skip to main content
Sojourners
faith in action for social justice
Sojourners
About
About SojournersEventsOur TeamWork With UsMediaWays to GiveInvite a SpeakerContact Us
SojoAction
OverviewTake ActionIssue AreasResourcesFaith-Rooted AdvocatesChurch Engagement
Magazine
Current IssueArchivesManage My SubscriptionWrite for Sojourners
Sections
LatestPoliticsColumnsLiving FaithArts & CultureGlobalPodcastsVideoPreaching The Word
Subscribe
MagazineRenewPreaching the WordCustomer ServiceNewsletters
Donate
Login / Register

On Syria: We Must Use a Moral Compass to Guide Our Moral Outrage

By Jim Wallis
Demonstrators protest against potential British military involvement in Syria in London Thursday. ANDREW COWIE/AFP/Getty Image
Aug 29, 2013
Share

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama said that if Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against innocent civilians, there must be “international consequences.” The president is right. But what should those consequences be?

The issue here, again, is one that we have not decided how to deal with: terrorism. The definition of terrorism is deliberate and brutal attacks upon innocent people — whether by individuals, groups, or heads of state. By that definition, Assad is a terrorist. And terrorists who possess weapons of mass destruction and demonstrate their willingness to use them are most dangerous ones. But how should we respond?

I am in in the U.K., where political leaders last night backed off the decision to make immediate “military strikes” while the U.S. and other nations are considering them. The feeling here is that international and legal legitimacy need to be established first, that the U.N. inspectors should finish their examinations in Syria before any actions are taken, and that all other means of response should be fully explored first. These are good decisions.

Why is there such public “war fatigue” in the U.K. and the U.S. in light of Iraq and Afghanistan — and why is that creating reluctance to more military action? Because wars and military solutions have FAILED in response to terrorism — failed to achieve what they were purported to do.

Military responses have also taken mass numbers of innocent lives and have had so many unintended consequences. That very same thing could happen in Syria. In response to the terrorism of taking innocent lives, we could end up taking so many more innocent lives, destabilizing the world even further, and even recruiting more angry people for terrorism.

Christians should be guided by the gospel of peacemaking and conflict resolution that reduces the violence of our world. And it is a long-held Christian principle that governments and citizens are obliged to work for the avoidance of war, which, even under just war theories, must only be a last resort.

It’s natural to feel moral outrage, and there is no doubt that the Assad regime is responsible for more than 100,000 civilian deaths. But a moral compass must guide our moral outrage.

Christians, both who identify as pacifists and those who subscribe to a just war theory, can agree that rigorous criteria and conditions must be applied before there is any decision for military intervention. As part of that process, we must first ask if military strikes are a last resort. Have we exhausted peaceful, multilateral solutions to the conflict? Will military intervention have a reasonable chance of success, and how would we define that success? And does military intervention comply with international and U.S. law.

We also need to consider the unintended consequences of U.S. military action in Syria both at home and abroad. Our involvement could add fuel to the fires of violence that are already consuming the region. It could exacerbate anti-American hatred and produce new recruits for terror attacks against the United States and our allies. Military action could also increase refugee displacement, further risking regional destabilization. 

It is time to go much deeper, and this tragic situation has given us that opportunity. Can a head of state be proven guilty of committing an act of terrorism against innocent people? How might that galvanize and unite international opinion against him and in defense of the Syrian people who are suffering so much? Could new levels of isolation and rejection be used to surround him with united international pressure to weaken his regime? And if the use of force is necessary as part of that pressure, how can we begin to move away from the unintended consequences of war to a new and focused strategy of policing the world of its terrorist threats?

Old military solutions have clearly failed. It’s time to find a better and more successful way.

Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!

Tell Us What You Think!

We value your feedback on the articles we post. Please fill out the form below, and a member of our online publication team will receive your message. By submitting this form, you consent to your comment being featured in our Letters section. 

Please do not include any non-text characters, such as emojis or other non-standard content, into your submission.  It may cause errors in submitting the form.  Thanks!

Don't Miss a Story!

Sojourners is committed to faith and justice even in polarized times. Will you join us on the journey?
Confirm Your Email Address.
By entering your email we'll send you our newsletter each Thursday. You can unsubscribe anytime.
Demonstrators protest against potential British military involvement in Syria in London Thursday. ANDREW COWIE/AFP/Getty Image
Search Sojourners

Subscribe

Magazine Newsletters Preaching The Word
Follow on Facebook Follow on Bluesky Follow on Instagram Subscribe to our RSS Feed
Sojourners
Donate Products Editorial Policies Privacy Policy

Media

Advertising Press

Opportunities

Careers Fellowship Program

Contact

Office
408 C St. NE
Washington DC, 20002
Phone 202-328-8842
Fax 202-328-8757
Email sojourners@sojo.net
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2025