After more than a year of violent repression of protests that have taken the lives of thousands of people, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad has figured out exactly how much he can get away with before his actions will provoke action from the West. Rather than being deterred by the prospect of an intervention to save the lives of his people, Assad now knows he can kill as many people as he likes. With reports of yet another massacre of dozens of women and children having been committed in the Homa region, the Syrian regime is demonstrating again that it will not be deterred by the condemnation of the international community from inflicting atrocities (let alone relinquish power). Indeed, rather than giving Assad pause, it may be that the latest statements of outrage issued by Secretary of State Clinton about events in Syria may just be confirming his impression that talk is all the United States and the West ever intend to do about the situation.
Clinton repeated earlier tough statements about Syria during a joint press conference with her Turkish counterpart. But as the U.S. has made it clear that no action will be taken without the consent of Syria’s Russian and Chinese allies, that is a virtual guarantee Assad has absolutely nothing to worry about. That the latest instance of mass slaughter — this time in the village of Qubeir where 78 persons are thought to have been killed, half of whom were women and children — happened while a United Nations peace plan was supposed to be implemented and U.N. personnel were in the country is just the latest evidence that Assad understands he can continue to act with impunity. If Assad is laughing at American suggestions he leave Syria, who can blame him for thinking U.S. policy is a joke?
U.N. observers were prevented from going to the site of the latest massacre by Syrian troops, but we expect the U.N. to be an impotent onlooker when mass slaughter is going on. The United States however, ought to be regarded differently. But with his trademark “lead from behind” style, President Obama seems to be emulating the behavior of the world organization he so admires.
The trouble here is not just the failure to act, though that is deeply troubling and a stain on America’s honor as well as that of the West. Rather, it is the combination of that lack of action with loud talk about Assad’s beastliness that is undermining the last shred of U.S. credibility as a force to be reckoned with in the region.
While silence about events in Syria would have been shocking, it might have made some sense if the president and the secretary of state had also made it clear the atrocities there were not America’s business. But to go on record as treating the crimes against humanity as an outrage that deeply offends Americans and then to do nothing about it is far worse. That is because the clear reluctance on the part of the administration to do something more than simply talk about Syria is not only being observed in Damascus. The real audience for this scandalous lack of backbone or a conscience on the part of the administration is in Moscow and Beijing.
More than just the people of that unhappy country will regret the consequences of America’s lack of guts and leadership on Syria. Though there are good reasons to worry about what would follow even a limited U.S. or Western intervention in Syria, the combination of talk and inaction will convince the Russians and Chinese they can dig in and back their awful Syrian client without fear of consequences. Even worse, it will convince them that President Obama is no more likely to go to the mat with Iran about its nuclear program than he is about Assad’s mass murders.
This is a real problem that is no less a matter of concern if the president sees these two cases differently, as some of his supporters insist he does. But after having demonstrated that he is a paper tiger on Syria, it is going to be very difficult to persuade the other members of the P5+1 talks with Iran that President Obama’s moral outrage is more than hot air. If Assad is allowed to go on killing people with no more than the prospect of a strongly worded statement from Hillary Clinton to deter him, the president may find out that once you lose your credibility, it takes more than a press conference to win it back.
The Obama administration's policy is shameful and laughably inept. This is the worst foreign policy ever, by complete amateurs.
People and nations, including the likes of Roosevelt and Churchill, were able to stand by and watch the conversion of millions of people into ashes, without lifting a finger to stop it. Many others were able to actively participate. n nWhat is the murder of merely thousands of Syrians, in a world like that?
As I wrote six weeks ago and have no reason to modify: n nWhen Arabs kill Arabs sell both sides bullets and get out of the way! n nNiether the USA, Israel or the Jewish People have any dog in this fight. Whoever wins will be an enemy. If Assad remains in power the Iranians will have a weakened ally. If he is overthrown the Sunni extremists will take power and Syria will return to the same old Israel confrontation policy it adopted in 1948 under the Sunni leadership of that era. n nSunni, Shia, Alawi, (Syrian) Druze or Christian–an Arab is an Arab. There may be civilized individuals but the bulk are savages. Let them kill each other–civilization has no dog in this fight.
such a flunkin civilized soul is yours, levine.
Why throw American TAX $$$ and SOLDIERS into a meat grinder between Assad and the Muslim Brotherhood? Soros is the funding for the Muslim Brotherhood, and they are hell-bent on installing Shari'a Law, so how mistreated are they when they are clearly longing for WORSE. n nDavlevine is right – sell both sides bullets and get out of the way. No good thing can come of jumping into the middle of that war that has NO right or good side at all. Throw the Muslim Brotherhood under the bus. Or a tank. Just sweep them straight to Hell in a handbasket. The sooner the better, Please.
Obama is in Putin's pocket and that is alarming when O plans to decimate American defenses and her nuclear deterrent. But that don't mean Jews or Israel, as noted, have a dog in this fight. But put it another way. Israel is next door. Israel could probably mount an attack across the Golan and do considerable damage against the Assad regime possibly taking Damascus with a joint air and armor/intfantry/artillery campaign. The odds of victory might even be better than a long flight to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. Should Israel intervene on humanitarian grounds? Assuming intervention is a moral imperative and O is morally crippled, or compromised, or cautious, by the logic of humanitarian intervention doesn't Israel inherit the ethical obligation to go in?
How can it be HUMANITARIAN to save the Muslim Brotherhood sock puppet of George Soros so they can convert another civilian dictatorship into YET another Soros/Shari'a Law dictatorship???? n nThis drumbeat fails to make sense.
How about another march against NATO "war mongering"? A bit of irony, here.
—"U.S. Inaction Allows Assad to Keep Killing"– n nspecious bullspin, Tobin….. Makes about as much sense as saying that It's Israel's fault, n nwhy can't contentions hire people who have a regard for truth and not obsessive bullspin artists.
Russia and China have a different view of the Syrian problem than the West. The West claims to believe in individual human rights. China ans Russia do not. But they all have the same enemies. Islam is on the path of war wherever they come in contact with non-Muslims. Yet the Muslims claim victim-hood everywhere!!!