USA, France and Syria: a war without pay-off

In the very next days, the U.S.A along with France will decide, whether they will fire their cruise missiles against Syria. As usual those great democracies put forward morale and human rights. Which is normal, as they each claim having a universal responsibility.

 

However, a basic principal of war is the payoff rule: how much will my country get back against the human, financial and political cost of a war ? The present situation in Syria is far from giving a clear and simple answer, for the following reasons:

Expeditionary wars: what legitimacy?

After my previous post dedicated to failing, or failed states, I got a reply leaving me in a bad mood, as I was reminded that France's duty was to intervene in Mali at least to rescue its citizens living there (they are said to be around 5,000) and if deemed necessary to protect its national interests. That's right. In my attempt to explain the vacuity of supporting failed/failing states I could have been more accurate.

Well, Let us look a little bit more closely at the reasons for which a democracy may decide to deploy troops in a third country. You will read here below a graph, which still can be improved as this is just a prototype. This graph encompasses two different axis and a green triangle:
The vertical axis depicts the degree of cynicism having lead to the dcision to launch an operation;
The horizontal axis, on the contrary, shows how much universalism can weigh in the balance;
The triangle represents the area in which a good communication policy can drive the support of the public opinion in a democratic country.