Reasons for Obama to aid Syria – other than moral ones

Obama intervened in Libya for humanitarian reasons – to prevent a slaughter. Why not in Syria – to end actual killing? Perhaps he needs the reasons of a realist.

AP Photo
Syrian rebels march in a show of strength during a demonstration in Idlib, Syria, Feb. 10.

President Obama has yet to show a moral impulse for using force in Syria to end the slaughter. While he condemns the killing of innocents, he has not justified military intervention in the way that he did after ordering air attacks on Libya last year:

“As president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”

Mr. Obama’s actions in Libya were designed to merely prevent the wholesale killing of an entire city, Benghazi. In Syria, the images of mass graves and slaughter have been everywhere on the Internet for months. As many as 7,000 civilians have been killed.

Why the inconsistency in Obama’s apparent humanitarianism?

It may be due to the fact that he is a realist in foreign policy, not an idealist. He tries to deal with the world effectively as it is rather than move it toward an ideal state, such as more democracy.

Is there a realist solution then to Syria’s slaughter, one that might justify even small military steps, such as a no-fly zone or securing a safe area for refugees within Syria?

The answer could lie in Obama’s Feb. 4 prediction of an “inevitable collapse” for the regime of Bashar al-Assad. In other words, the tipping point is near.

If that is the case, the realist would want to be in on the ground floor of the post-Assad era, retaining America’s interests in this most pivotal of Middle East countries.

So far, however, Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah, have sent thousands of forces into Syria to help the regime. And Russia keeps supplying arms to Syria while its foreign minister just met with Mr. Assad.

The United States has done little to help unify the Syrian opposition or provide it funding. While the US ambassador to Damascus did venture to Syrian towns last year where dissidents are strong, American agents are probably not operating in the country.

Last week, the Obama administration did talk of forming a loose alliance of nations to further pressure Mr. Assad. But that is only an initial reaction to the veto by Russia and China of a UN Security Council resolution asking Assad to step down.

At the least, any non-United Nations coalition should be set up now to deal with the potential chaos if Assad should suddenly fall. Syria is riven with ethnic and sectarian differences. The ruling Alawite clan of Assad has either persuaded or threatened other minorities to stay in line, claiming the majority Sunni Muslims will harm them. Tens of thousands of refugees will need help. A new government will need support for years.

There’s a lesson to be learned from Obama’s hesitancy a year ago in not helping force Hosni Mubarak out of power in Egypt. It gave the US a weak hand in Cairo’s still-turbulent politics. Now with Syria, the US should be helping forcefully to end an even more ruthless regime. It would provide influence to salvage US interests in the region, from protecting Israel to containing Iran.

America’s strategic interests can sometimes justify humanitarian intervention.

In 1999, President Clinton sought to end instability in Europe among the former Soviet-bloc nations. He launched an 11-week aerial attack on the militant regime in Serbia. But Mr. Clinton also protected the people of Kosovo from slaughter. And the military campaign worked without the loss of one American life.

Very idealist. Very realist, too.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.