The Syrian government’s chemical weapons attack against its own people certainly meets the criteria of crimes against humanity, but how do the proposed U.S. strikes against the Syrian regime stand up to logical scrutiny?

First, let’s assume that the intelligence is right and that the evidence and analysis won’t prove faulty as it did when the United States exposed details of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) to the United Nations in 2003. If we’re right, our intent to punish the Syrian government for its horrific crimes would seem justifiable, especially if we can successfully target Syria’s WMDs and its WMD infrastructure.

Hypothetically now, suppose that Syria did not use WMDs, but had only bombed its people with conventional weapons, inflicting equally repulsive death and injury to the same noncombatants — men, women, and children. Wouldn’t the bloodied and mangled bodies of the dead and survivors warrant a similar response? Certainly, such attacks must qualify as crimes against humanity even if a civil war is in progress. Apparently not. According to the political rationale, only the use of chemical weapons (not conventional ones) justifies military action.

Thus, a logical breakdown arises in our rationalization for action. We dismiss crimes against humanity perpetrated with conventional weapons and reason that only violations of bans on the use of biochemical weapons warrant action.

One could take a cynical view. Conventional weapons are big business around the world — and yes, in 2011 the United States topped the list in dollar value for arms sales, well ahead of second-place Russia. Yet wouldn’t fewer instances of human suffering occur if we worked through the United Nations to curtail armament production and turn "swords into ploughshares"? Unfortunately, 21st-century humanity has not evolved sufficiently to follow such a course so the United States rationalizes actions based on a superpower paradigm.

Notably, weapons aren’t always involved in crimes against humanity. Over the past 15 years, the international community remained aloof as forces embroiled in conflict in the Congo pillaged food supplies, contributing significantly to mass starvation. Millions died slowly from disease and hunger — a crime near Holocaust proportions. Obviously, when it comes to crimes against humanity, we tend to make distinctions about what merits a response and what doesn’t.

What then should we do about the current Syrian crisis — attack or not? Since military action is not logically consistent from a moral and ethical perspective, we should first seek nonviolent measures to pressure the Syrian regime to stop all attacks, conventional or otherwise, against its noncombatant populace.

A coalition of nations could seize Syrian assets around the world and blockade its ports to ensure only food and humanitarian supplies enter from the sea. Additionally, Syria’s neighbors could prevent the movement of arms across their borders.

There are other reasons not to attack. The last thing we need to see are images of the mutilated bodies of women and children resulting from collateral damage during a U.S. response. Our precision weapons can’t guarantee that won’t happen. Then, there’s the end game. What’s next? What happens if Syria escalates its attacks? Do we back down or escalate our response — and the collateral damage?

Whatever our response, we should demand that our government acts in a logically and morally conscionable way and has realistic escalation and exit strategies.