The strongest version of this narrative is a moral indictment of selective anti-war sentiment, particularly among American conservatives. It highlights a genuine inconsistency: opposition to war often hinges on the safety of U.S. troops rather than the broader humanitarian consequences. The piece effectively challenges the hypocrisy of accepting remote warfare—drones, airstrikes, sanctions—as morally permissible while drawing the line at ground invasions. This is a valid critique of how national...