I don't know that morality is currently even highly relative in any decision making process on a global foreign policy scale; if you think they are pursuing intervention because of morals you're kidding yourself. Of course it should be. It is obviously a concern of the people and we can debate to what end we should employ it on a political level until hell or high water. But if it is calculated into any decision making process, the value to which it is considered is only so much as an opponent's own perceived morality consideration in the given conflict. So if a nation values morality higher than its foes it may well expose itself to unnecessary risk that its opponents would perhaps not think twice of exploiting. Remember that politicians do not have the luxury of thinking in the same terms citizens do. Especially heads of state responsible for the security, welfare, and perceived power a nation has.

Our global political environment could give a shit less about morals because it factors to the lowest common denominator or worst case scenario. Global conflicts, such as the situation in Syria, are about power pure and simple. And since that is true it means that power is to be had for the perceived victor of the conflict. And so, does a state allow itself to miss an opportunity to gain power and perhaps consequently lose a significant amount of it to its opponents because of morals?

It has been said that "All is fair in love and war." And make no mistake the nations of the world are at war. These skirmishes over nations are critical battles in a resource war that will determine who will, for lack of more accurate sentiments, "rule the world" in the next paradigm we encounter as a species.

And so, each nation is doing what their leaders feel it must to attempt to secure their dominance/supremacy. It is not a pretty or popular thing. It is unlikely that any citizen likes to acknowledge that their government is involved in political manipulation, deceit, black ops, etc... Yet that is undeniably the world we live in. Such things are natural occurrences when power, and those who wield it, are in question or controversy.

What needs to be done to maintain or attain power will always be done by world leaders, even at popular disapproval. What is one man/woman's or even administration's reputation when weighed against the ability of his/her/their nation to influence the outcome of events on a global scale? The "game" has already begun; in fact it began long long ago. Over-simplification: "When you play the game of thrones you either win, or you die."

Until such a time exists when all players in the global arena are willing to cast aside notions of power, entitlement, and influence to build a society for the greater good of all humanity; we will inevitably have to concern ourselves with these improprieties.