Doing nothing while Syria burns / Sanctions and speeches aren´t enough (NEW YORK DAILY NEWS OP-ED) Charles Krauthammer 04/27/12)
Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/syria-burns-article-1.1068017
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Articles-Index-Top
Publishers-Index-Top
Last year President Obama ordered U.S. intervention in Libya under
the grand new doctrine of “Responsibility to Protect.” Moammar
Khadafy 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. (© Copyright 2012
NYDailyNews.com. 04/27/12)
Return to Top
MATERIAL REPRODUCED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY