The Right Opinion
While Syria Burns
WASHINGTON -- Last year President Obama ordered U.S. intervention in Libya under the grand new doctrine of "Responsibility to Protect." Moammar Gaddafi was threatening a massacre in Benghazi. To stand by and do nothing "would have been a betrayal of who we are," explained the president.
In the year since, the government of Syria has more than threatened massacres. It has carried them out. Nothing hypothetical about the disappearances, executions, indiscriminate shelling of populated neighborhoods. More than 9,000 are dead.
Obama has said that we cannot stand idly by. And what has he done? Stand idly by.
Yes, we've imposed economic sanctions. But as with Iran, the economic squeeze has not altered the regime’s behavior. Monday's announced travel and financial restrictions on those who use social media to track down dissidents is a pinprick. No Disney World trips for the chiefs of the Iranian and Syrian security agencies. And they might now have to park their money in Dubai instead of New York. That'll stop 'em.
Obama’s other major announcement -- at Washington's Holocaust Museum, no less -- was the creation of an Atrocities Prevention Board.
I kid you not. A board. Russia flies planeloads of weapons to Damascus. Iran supplies money, trainers, agents, more weapons. And what does America do? Support a feckless U.N. peace mission that does nothing to stop the killing. (Indeed, some of the civilians who met with the peacekeepers were summarily executed.) And establish an Atrocities Prevention Board.
With multiagency participation, mind you. The liberal faith in the power of bureaucracy and flowcharts, of committees and reports, is legend. But this is parody.
Now, there's an argument to be made that we do not have a duty to protect. That foreign policy is not social work. That you risk American lives only when national security and/or strategic interests are at stake, not merely to satisfy the humanitarian impulses of some of our leaders.
But Obama does not make this argument. On the contrary. He goes to the Holocaust Museum to commit himself and his country to defend the innocent, to affirm the moral imperative of rescue. And then does nothing of any consequence.
His case for passivity is buttressed by the implication that the only alternative to inaction is military intervention -- bombing, boots on the ground.
But that's false. It’s not the only alternative. Why aren’t we organizing, training and arming the Syrian rebels in their sanctuaries in Turkey? Nothing unilateral here. Saudi Arabia is already planning to do so. Turkey has turned decisively against Assad. And the French are pushing for even more direct intervention.
Instead, Obama insists that we can only act with support of the "international community," meaning the U.N. Security Council -- where Russia and China have a permanent veto. By what logic does the moral legitimacy of U.S. action require the blessing of a thug like Vladimir Putin and the butchers of Tiananmen Square?
Our slavish, mindless self-subordination to "international legitimacy" does nothing but allow Russia -- a pretend post-Soviet superpower -- to extend a protective umbrella over whichever murderous client it chooses. Obama has all but announced that Russia (or China) has merely to veto international actions -- sanctions, military assistance, direct intervention -- and the U.S. will back off.
For what reason? Not even President Clinton, a confirmed internationalist, would acquiesce to such restraints. With Russia prepared to block U.N. intervention against its client, Serbia, Clinton saved Kosovo by summoning NATO to bomb the hell out of Serbia, the Russians be damned.
If Obama wants to stay out of Syria, fine. Make the case that it's none of our business. That it's too hard. That we have no security/national interests there.
In my view, the evidence argues against that, but at least a coherent case for hands off could be made. That would be an honest, straightforward policy. Instead, the president, basking in the sanctity of the Holocaust Museum, proclaims his solemn allegiance to a doctrine of responsibility -- even as he stands by and watches Syria burn.
If we are not prepared to intervene, even indirectly by arming and training Syrians who want to liberate themselves, be candid. And then be quiet. Don't pretend the U.N. is doing anything. Don't pretend the U.S. is doing anything. And don't embarrass the nation with an Atrocities Prevention Board. The tragedies of Rwanda, Darfur and now Syria did not result from lack of information or lack of interagency coordination, but from lack of will.
(c) 2012, The Washington Post Writers Group

5 Comments
wjm
Friday, April 27, 2012 at 10:09 AM
More lies and leading from behind from Chairman Obamao. He does nothing becaus Assad is Anti-Israel, and supporters of Islamic Terrorism. His Buddies, with his favorite sound the daily call to prayer. Syria, the enemy of Israel and Christianity, the friend of a treasonous regime.
Bubba
Friday, April 27, 2012 at 5:52 PM
What I think is lost here, or at least unsaid, is that Obama may quite possibly want to see Syria burn and Assad remain in power. Syria is a client state of IRan, whereas Libya was not. Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood was in favor, Mubarrak was not. Reading D'Souza's "The Roots of Obama's Rage" was an eye opener - he is at least Muslim sympathetic, if not a fellow traveler who does NOT like America or the West. As his adorable wife, Michelle, intoned in a covert whisper during a presidential ceremony "All this about a damned flag." Indeed.
Army Officer (Ret)
Friday, April 27, 2012 at 8:53 PM
Murderous Muslims (but I repeat myself), are busily whacking other murderous Muslims (but I repeat myself again), and Obama makes the one good decisions he's ever made in his life: do nothing.I'm okay with that.As for Clinton, he would have gladly let Serbia swallow its neighbors if not for a little thing called "Lewinski-gate." If he hadn't been caught with his pants down and needed a "Wag the Dog" distraction, N.A.T.O. (meaning us) would never have done anything in the Balkans.And the Serbs weren't the only bad guys in that conflict. They were just the side that was whacking murderous Muslims (but I repeat myself yet again), so, since we needed a tidy little war to get our attention off the Presidential bimbo-eruption-du-jour, and the Serbs were winning at that particular moment, they were the most convenient targets.The 'Bamster has made some stupid decisions in the past four years, but staying out of a civil war in Syria isn't one of them.
Ruth Barker
Tuesday, May 1, 2012 at 12:22 AM
This comment is for Dr. Krauthammer. Obama is making such a big deal out of his getting Bin Laden. Looking back at the pictures in the war room when the tense mission was being carried out. I could not find our Pres. anywhere.....Oh, there he is crouching down in the second row. Why isn't he out in front cheering them on, I thought? I see, what if things don't go so well, he could sneak out. However, now things went well guess who takes the credit..again and again Ruth Barker-Ex U.S. Air Force Flight Nurse.
Major Stu
Thursday, May 3, 2012 at 9:10 AM
This is another interesting consequence of the "deficits don't matter" attitude of the quasi-Philosopher King. It is a corollary of the Golden Rule, "He who has the gold gets to make the rules." The Obama Administration is taking dictation from the Chinese who hold the lion's share of our foreign debt. The State Dept. is so intimidated by the concept of China making calls on our debt that they have essentially allowed them free rein. The hypocrisy of pounding on the table for "Responsibility to Protect" while shuffling our feet and waiting for the brutality to stop harks back to the Clinton Administration taking a pass on the chance to take out bin Laden, and resolute inaction regarding the USS Cole and Khobar Towers attacks. When I see the web video with Bill Clinton wagging his finger again, talking about doing "the honorably choice", it nauseates me. I remember another time he wagged his finger for the camera, and he wasn't truthful then, either.