The "moral leadership" argument falls apart when you look at how the U.S. handled Iraq after Saddam fell.

Bush sold the invasion as a mission to spread democracy, but once the regime collapsed, Washington suddenly had no problem backing sectarian militias and warlords who committed atrocities—because stability, not morality, became the priority. Obama then withdrew, letting ISIS fill the vacuum, only to return with airstrikes while pretending it was all about humanitarian intervention. Every administration picks and chooses when morality matters, and when "strategic interests" take over.

If morality is just a convenient talking point, what makes you think direct action could ever force real accountability? Who would even enforce it—Congress, which profits from the defense industry, or the public, which moves on to the next crisis as soon as the headlines change?