It's not just morally questionable, it's outright wrong.
Unfortunately trying to stop genocide with violence and failing miserably is even more wrong. On the other hand using supposed genocide as excuse to forward geopolitical interests would also be wrong.
Given how Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq wars have turned out, I'm not in favor of meddling. Given how nobody gave single fuck about Khmer rouge, I don't believe in genuine good will in geopolitics. So I'm not giving my permission to anybody to conduct air strikes in Syria, but they won't ask me either. Only air strike that gets my approval is dropping several tonnes of polyurethane to Dabiq.
Because it is better to let your own terrorist grow the biggest terrorist owned zone, and build an enormous army full of cash ? This is exactly what create this big projection power that make successful terrorist attack in France.
There is 6000 europeans terrorists in Syria; 1000-2000 french, letting them settle there give them fantastical capabilities to recruit more, and project more power on european countries with trained terrorists.
Nobody ever said that the invasion of Iraq was to stop a genocide. In my opinion it was mainly revenge for 9/11, even if the association of Saddam Hussein with terrorism is murky at best.
Unfortunately trying to stop genocide with violence and failing miserably is even more wrong. On the other hand using supposed genocide as excuse to forward geopolitical interests would also be wrong.
Given how Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq wars have turned out, I'm not in favor of meddling. Given how nobody gave single fuck about Khmer rouge, I don't believe in genuine good will in geopolitics. So I'm not giving my permission to anybody to conduct air strikes in Syria, but they won't ask me either. Only air strike that gets my approval is dropping several tonnes of polyurethane to Dabiq.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isi...