The situation in Syria is truly horrific,
the government having decided to wage war and engage in murdering its own
citizens. The recent massacre of
civilians including a large number of women and children highlights just how
awful the regime is in that country. Yes something should be done about this, but what?
The U. S. and the western countries have learned
that no matter how much they may dislike the situation and no matter how much
what Syria
is doing in morally and militarily indefensible, there are limits on what
intervention can do. The U. S. intervention in Iraq is still fresh in everyone’s
minds; a lasting example of how a well intentioned effort resulted in an
outcome far different from what was wanted. Was the horror inflicted upon the Iraqi people by the Iraq war and occupation worse than the horror inflicted upon those people by Saddam? Maybe, maybe not.
Of course Mitt Romney
never misses an opportunity
make a political issue out of anything.
And as usual in politics and particular with Republicans, Mr. Romney
goes far beyond an analytical critique and blames Mr. Obama for allowing tremendous
amounts of murder.
Mr. Romney, the
presumptive Republican presidential nominee, condemned Mr. Obama on Tuesday for
a “policy of paralysis” toward Syria
that he said had allowed President Bashar al-Assad to “slaughter 10,000
individuals.”
Exactly what Mr. Obama could have done to prevent the
slaughter is not clear, even to Mr. Romney.
But
Mr. Romney’s own prescriptions for ending the mounting death toll in Syria
have been less definitive than his denunciations of the president.
He
called for the United States to “work with partners to organize and arm Syrian
opposition groups so they can defend themselves” — a policy that goes somewhat
further than Mr. Obama’s but falls short of the airstrikes advocated by
Republicans like Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South
Carolina.
Human Rights
Groups are concerned about unintended consequences of military
intervention.
Even
human rights groups are not demanding intervention.
“No
human rights organization wants to criticize the administration for failing to
do something we haven’t yet asked them to do,” said Tom Malinowski, the head of
the Washington
office of Human Rights Watch. “We see more complexity and risk in Syria
because of the sectarian dimension and the weakness of the opposition.”
The war chorus of John
McCain, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman wants to involve the U. S. militarily in Syria ,
but then they want to involve the U. S. militarily in every
conflict. One wonders if they were in
charge of U. S. foreign
policy if the U. S.
would not be involved in a war in every country. Sen. Graham is genuinely moved by the murder
of women and children in Syria ,
“Maybe
the kids will make the difference,” Mr. Graham said in an interview, referring
to the killings on Friday in the Houla area of central Syria . “We live
in a visual world. When you see the slaughter of 30 children, it reminds us of
who we are.”
and everyone shares
his revulsion but his solutions always seem to be wanting to make things worse. Ineffectual use of American war power makes
the country less credible and weaker in the future, not stronger. And how many children have been killed in Afghanistan by error from American attacks?
America is strong militarily, the strongest military power in the world. But that power is not unlimited or omnipotent. If America could enter the conflict in Syria and with very little cost to American and Syrian lives end that conflict everyone is fully in favor of intervention. But that is almost certainly not the situation.
America is strong militarily, the strongest military power in the world. But that power is not unlimited or omnipotent. If America could enter the conflict in Syria and with very little cost to American and Syrian lives end that conflict everyone is fully in favor of intervention. But that is almost certainly not the situation.
Mr. Romney’s position
is in part that he wants to arm the rebel forces that are arrayed against the
government. That was U. S. policy in Afghanistan when the Soviets
invaded that country. The U. S.
armed and supported the Taliban. How did
that work out?
No comments:
Post a Comment