Recentl,y Michael Doran and Max Boot wrote<\/a> an op-ed in the New York Times entitled \u201c5 Reasons to Intervene in Syria Now.\u201d\u00a0 While their reasons may make sense in a purely geo-political sense, they seem to reflect none of the wisdom in the Just War Theory. The just war theory is essentially a roadmap to avoid initiating or entering a war that will get a country mired into conflict with very little chance of either winning or advancing the cause of human rights.<\/p>\n The theory has evolved over time with considerable input from Saints Augustine and Aquinas. Much of the Just War Theory is summarized in the following points:<\/p>\n A war is not legitimate or illegitimate simply based on its original motivation: it must comply with a series of additional requirements:<\/p>\n It is necessary that the response be commensurate to the evil; use of more violence than is strictly necessary would constitute an unjust war.<\/p>\n Governing authorities declare<\/em> war, but their decision is not sufficient cause to begin a war. If the people<\/em> oppose a war, then it is illegitimate. The people have a right to depose a government that is waging, or is about to wage, an unjust war.<\/p>\n Once war has begun, there remain moral limits to action. For example, one may not attack innocents or kill hostages.<\/p>\n It is obligatory to take advantage of all options for dialogue and negotiations before undertaking a war; war is only legitimate as a last resort.<\/p>\n Under this doctrine, expansionist wars, wars of pillage, wars to convert infidels<\/a>\u00a0or pagans<\/a>, and wars for glory are all inherently unjust.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Another important point that has been added is that the war must be winnable. This certainly posed a problem for the United States in Vietnam, and currently is doing so in Afghanistan. A military foray into Syria would probably also not meet the standards of being winnable.<\/p>\n The arguments in favor of invading Syria that Doran and Boot make are:<\/p>\n First, American intervention would diminish Iran\u2019s influence in the Arab world. Iran has showered aid on Syria and even sent advisers from its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps to assist Mr. Assad. Iran knows that if his regime fell, it would lose its most important base in the Arab world and a supply line to pro-Iranian Hezbollah militants in Lebanon.<\/p>\n Second, a more muscular American policy could keep the conflict from spreading. Syria\u2019s civil war has already exacerbated sectarian strife in Lebanon and Iraq \u2014 and the Turkish government has accused Mr. Assad of supporting Kurdish militants in order to inflame tensions between the Kurds and Turkey.<\/p>\n Third, by training and equipping reliable partners within Syria\u2019s internal opposition, America could create a bulwark against extremist groups like Al Qaeda, which are present and are seeking safe havens in ungoverned corners of Syria.<\/p>\n Fourth, American leadership on Syria could improve relations with key allies like Turkey and Qatar. Both the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and his Qatari counterpart have criticized the United States for offering only nonlethal support to the rebellion. Both favor establishing a no-fly zone and \u201csafe zones\u201d for civilians in Syrian territory.<\/p>\n