I kinda agree, but I think its wrong to say that the war would be useless (or pointless). I mean, the U.S. is a global hegemon and I think it has assumed the role of global protector (whether it wanted to or not). There may be no physical national interest in that country that we would be able to see, but because of this role we have assumed, it might be necessary to start the war for the sake of our image. Furthermore (and I'm just having fun speculating now), it might set future precedent that if a government starts violating some definition of human rights, the USA will have a duty to come in and end whatever violations that are taking place. But yeah, other than that I dont think it would be a necessary war.

And yeah, this reply is assuming a lot, I know, but its fun to think about. So if anyone wants to discuss: does the U.S. have a duty to promote something along the lines of human rights, or should decisions to start a conflict be based off of a national interest? (Maybe the national interest is to to promote human rights?)