In the arguments over what the US should be doing in regards to Ukraine and Russia, a number of people are resorting to the argument that the US has no moral authority due to the invasion of Iraq. There are a number of reasons that using this as an arguing tactic is wrong.
Note: This diary is not about whether the US should or shouldn't do anything, just about the various flaws with "moral authority" as an argument.
The first reason, as the title says, is that it's a rhetorical fallacy. It's basically ad hominem, where an attack is made on the person or institution rather than dealing with the facts.
The second reason is that a government can't have moral authority any more than a corporation can. So, the US government can't have any moral authority, only the people running it, that is, unless you really want to start considering organizations - like businesses - as people. If you are going to argue about people, are you really going to assign Bush's failures to Obama?
The third is the arbitrary choice people seem to be making over why the US has no moral authority. Iraq? What about Vietnam, Cuba, the Philippines, Guam, Hawaii, the entire land we live in?
The fourth is who has that authority then? None of the western European countries would be allowed to make the argument, and neither would China, India, Pakistan, or Iraq.
And what if a country, say New Zealand, says we should help Ukraine? Should we follow them just because they have this elusive "moral authority?" I say no. Moral authority grants nothing to the country that has it, no special ability, nor special rights.
The reason, the only reason, for a country to make a choice, is whether it's in our interest. Now, there are lots of reasons for it to be in our interest, even if whatever is happening would not directly affect us. But all a "moral authority" argument does is prevent people from having that discussion.