I found myself in the rare position on Friday of being in agreement with a decision taken by our current president.  Said decision—the launching of targeted missile strikes against believed chemical weapons facilities in Syria—was an especially difficult and thorny one.  There remain compelling arguments on both sides of the debate, but ultimately, the cost of inaction revealed itself to be too high and the requirements incumbent upon the United States by virtue of moral history compelled us to act.  And so, while not often in favor of military action to solve problems or improve the lives of everyday people on the ground, I find myself in the awkward position of supporting the administration on this policy action, even while holding on to my belief that their broader strategy (to the degree that one exists) is inherently flawed.

Thankfully, I have never been put in a position to make a decision that could result in the widescale loss of human life.  It is no doubt a tremendous burden that our civilian leaders and military commanders shoulder.  The calculation that any amount of human lives lost justifies a particular action or goal strikes me as a chilling one, requiring a degree of cold-blooded detachment that I am uncertain I could muster.  That it has fallen to others to do so is a fortunate development that has afforded me (and probably you) the luxury of armchair quarterbacking and second-guessing.  But because of the lethal consequences and destructive potential of these strikes, it is imperative that we have the debate and make the judgments that shape our leaders’ decisions in a democratic society.

While there are dissenting opinions, the weight of the facts seems to demonstrate that the Syrian regime, and President Bashar al-Assad in particular, used chemical weapons on its own people.  Russia, Assad’s steadfast ally in his struggle to maintain power, naturally denies that any such banned weapons were used.  Assad has a history of using banned chemical weapons, so this alleged behavior should come as a surprise to no one in the international community.  His barbarism and determination to stay in power, inherited from his father Hafez al-Assad who bombed the entire town of Hama into virtual oblivion and killed over 20,000 people in 1982, are the hallmarks of his nefarious, despicable regime.  That Russia would have few qualms in cozying up to Assad is no surprise, as the Putin regime has supported the illegal invasion of sovereign states (Ukraine, Georgia), cracked down on dissidents and homosexuals at home, and itself used a banned nerve agent in Britain in an attack on a former spy in its most recent violation of international law and norms just last month.

If the Syrian chemical weapons attack is the serious breach of international law that it appears to be, the question then becomes what the international community should do about it.  And because the United States is the leading military power among the nations contesting Syria and Russia’s interpretation of acceptable international conduct, it falls to us.  There was always the diplomatic route, which we have tried before that involved a mix of economic and political sanctions. This course of action appears not to have moved the needle in this particular case.  President Obama, whose intelligence, poise, and deliberation I greatly admired in all of his dealings, fell short in his Syria policy.  His unenforced “red line” emboldened Assad and undermined American authority in curtailing the worst impulses of the Syrian regime.  In the realm of military options, we could have launched a broader strike and killed more Syrian (and possibly Russian troops), risking a wider confrontation and possible escalation.  Or we could have launched a targeted strike which took out a series of known (though possibly defunct) chemical installations but minimized casualties and therefore the possibility of escalation—which is the option the administration eventually chose.  Given the options at our disposal and the relevant history, I believe that we made the correct call.

So what precisely does a military attack accomplish that a diplomatic response could not?  That seems to be the most critical question.  I believe that the military attack accomplishes several key, unique objectives.  First, it demonstrates that actions beyond the pale—like the use of chemical weapons—have direct consequences.  You use chemical weapons, you incur a swift military response that will impair your ability to conduct similar attacks in the future.  Second, it also sends a message, however belated and perhaps underwhelming, to the Syrian people and the international community that we will not let these transgressions go unanswered.  That there are, in fact, red lines that should not and cannot be crossed.  That America will take up the mantle as the protector of something approaching a moral standard, even if it has recoiled from the role in the last year.

The world needs moral leadership, and this administration, thus far, has not been up to the task or even willing to assume this traditional America posture.  Even if you believe that the US has historically been a bad-faith actor, they have often said the right things about the respect for human rights, the importance of international law and norms, and the promotion of democracy around the world.  These words have mattered in the past, and they matter still today.  It is heartening, in some small sense, that this administration feels at least a small sense of the weight of this history and responsibility.  What would be far better would be a comprehensive Syria strategy that allowed more than 11 Syrian refugees into the US this year alongside greater financial support for the UN High Commissioner for Refugee’s programs in Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey.  But this is a start.

I am also heartened that we have chosen to act in concert with our allies Britain and France.  It has been this administration’s policy to eschew or denigrate our allies and the benefit of coordinated action, to our detriment and Russia’s delight.  Our NATO and other allies have almost always made us stronger, emphasized the importance of consensus, and tempered our martial instincts.  When you have the world’s biggest hammer, it is tempting to go in search of nails.  Returning to a policy of international consensus and collective action would represent a welcome return to normalcy in our foreign policy, though, sadly, this is just as likely a one-off instance.  Still, it was the correct action at the correct time, and credit must be given for that decision.

I am encouraged that this administration has stood up to Syria and stood up to Russia on an issue of enormous moral and strategic importance.  Assad has been allowed to get away with far too much, and his normalization as a legitimate head of state should continue to be opposed with every tool in our toolbox.  Similarly, Putin has also been allowed to commit, or in this case abet, any number of atrocities, embodying the most permissive, passive tendencies of the international system in allowing repeated violations of norms and sovereignty across a multitude of incidents, accidents, and conflicts.  We should never green-light a military operation that results in the loss of human life casually or without serious contemplation of all the options at our disposal.  But sometimes a red line is a red line, and the clarity with which you draw it matters.  I do not anticipate that I will continue to agree with the vast majority of this administration’s actions, but this is one I can get behind.