President Barack Obama’s most recent televised address to the nation was reassuring in that it proposed a peaceful solution to the conflict in Syria, but it espoused an assumptive, slippery-slope narrative that hasn’t sat well with me.

It’s the same narrative I associate with the right wing. For example, “allowing gays to marry will lead to bestiality” and “restricting gun laws will leave the American people powerless to the government” — these kinds of extreme, fear-inducing “what ifs” are not only inaccurate, they’re unethical.

In his speech, Obama detailed the spiral into chaos that would surely come to fruition if the United States fails to bomb Syria. 

“If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas and using them. Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield, and it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons and to use them to attack civilians.” 

This line of thinking can be classified as either paranoia or sophistry, but it’s undoubtedly convincing. Although the majority of Americans disapprove of military action against Syria overall, a recent poll by Ipsos-Reuters reveals that rephrasing the question has a major impact on survey respondents. The phrase “to help stop the killing of civilians” as support for military action only garnered 26 percent in favor, while “in response to the use of chemical weapons” boosted the approval rating up to 42 percent. 

The primitive ideology behind the “public hanging” has been repeated again and again in this case, with the above quote as a prime example. There’s talk of “other tyrants” lurking, waiting to commit some immoral atrocity the second the United States shows a hint of mercy. It’s a kind of regurgitated truism about human psychology that is too often taken at face value alone. Is there really any reason to believe that these ambiguous tyrants around the globe would otherwise be wreaking havoc if it weren’t for the United States’ strong, exampled punishment of Bashar al-Assad?  

We have to remember that we’re talking about people who are evil enough to gas innocent children to prove a point. At this stage, the understanding of basic human psychology does not apply. It’s the same way the death penalty doesn’t deter crime, according to the National Academy of Sciences. This fact was supported by a committee of scholars associated with the National Research Council in a 2012 project.

In fact, a 2007 study by David S. Lee, then of Columbia University, and Justin McCrary, then of the University of Michigan, has shown that prison does nothing to deter crime. The Pew Center’s Public Safety Performance Project conducted an extensive study on this question as well, finding that all 41 U.S. states in the study failed to deter repeat criminals through their use of prisons. Whether or not these studies apply to global-scale wars is a matter of personal interpretation, but they certainly weaken the core, blindly accepted belief that punishment deters crime. This, however, is an appeal to reason, whereas, the fear narrative appeals only to emotion — and that’s precisely what is wrong with it.

Finding an example of when a lack of retaliation has resulted in something other than worldwide chaos is impossible because this “what if we don’t” narrative has been used as a reason for military intervention for generations — from the War of 1812 to the Gulf War.  

I’m not proposing the hyperbolic alternative that’s often juxtaposed with the argument for retaliation: that we simply look the other way. Rather, I propose that we intervene in a more productive, less violent manner, or — at the very least — have a more direct target of force instead of just haphazardly dropping a bomb. Most of all, I’m arguing that political action be based on substantial reasoning, rather than empty propaganda.