Abdalrhman Ismail/Reuters
People dig in the rubble in an ongoing search for survivors at a site hit previously by an airstrike in the rebel-held Tariq al-Bab neighborhood of Aleppo, Syria, last week.

From Aleppo to Rwanda, when is a president morally forced to act?

The Syrian civil war has been a humanitarian tragedy. But the moral compass of presidents is guided by more than just doing the 'right thing.'

In the wake of a failed cease-fire, Russian and Syrian forces are ramping up their devastating assault on Aleppo. Last week brought hundreds of more deaths, including at least 106 children, in a broader conflict that has cost more than 400,000 lives.

United Nations chief Ban Ki-moon describes Aleppo, once Syria's second-largest city, as now “worse than a slaugherhouse,” while President Obama has called the destruction “barbarous” and says it sometimes keeps him up at night.

But he also remains resolute in his refusal to intervene, saying there is little good the United States could do in a civil war where the parties appear bent on “burning their country to the ground.”

Mr. Obama is grappling with the same dilemma that presidents have faced at least since America emerged from World War II as the undefeated superpower – one pitting the moral imperative to act against the realistic assessment of what good that action would do.

Despite the heart-rending pictures daily from Aleppo, Obama has tipped the scale weighing the moral and pragmatic firmly toward the latter – as he has throughout his presidency when presented with the option to intervene militarily.

“Obama clearly is not moved by the moral dimensions of this, or if he is he’s not showing it,” says Thomas Henriksen, a foreign policy scholar at the Hoover Institution in Stanford, Calif. “He is being consistent with his governing principles, in that he said from the beginning that he would not start Mideast wars.”

Probably most Americans feel their “hearts go out” to the besieged Syrian people, Dr. Henriksen says. But he adds, “I don’t see Obama letting matters of the heart outweigh his realistic convictions about what the United States is able to do.”

In search of 'monsters'

US presidents have wrestled with the temptation to employ military might for good at least as far back as John Quincy Adams, who in a famous 1821 speech laid out the cautious line America would draw between moral support for the world’s repressed and downtrodden, and intervention to right the world’s wrongs.

“Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions, and her prayers be,” he said. “But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.”

For the next century, America wasn’t enough of a power to worry much about overseas forays, presidential historians say. It was not until Woodrow Wilson championed America as a force for good in the world – first with a foray into Mexico in 1914 against an authoritarian regime – that presidents started weighing moral interventionism.

“For almost 100 years after John Quincy Adams we simply don’t have the competency to intervene, and then when we do – from Wilson on – it becomes, ‘When we can intervene, we will,’ ” says Michael Corgan, an associate professor of international relations at Boston University. “It’s erratic, but consideration of what some would call the ‘moral aspects’ enter the picture” from there on.    

Presidents are influenced by three key factors in weighing interventions, experts say: their own convictions, public pressure, and the chances an intervention has for success. After Vietnam and until the Iraq war of George W. Bush, presidents were generally reluctant to intervene for moral reasons – advancing democracy, preventing slaughter – unless the prospects were good for a quick, in-and-out campaign, experts say.

From the Gulf War to today

For example, President George H. W. Bush launched the Gulf War based on Saddam Hussein’s breach of international law with his invasion of Kuwait. But Mr. Bush resisted intervening to stop the ethnic cleansing occurring in the Balkans – following, Dr. Henriksen notes, Secretary of State James Baker’s advice that, “We don’t have a dog in that fight.”

President Clinton was also reluctant to intervene in the Balkans – until he was coming up for reelection and started facing political pressure for “doing nothing about Bosnia,” Henriksen says.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP/File
President Clinton walks with Maj. Gen. Larry Ellis, commander of Task Force Eagle, during his arrival in Tuzla, Bosnia-Herzegovina, on Dec. 22, 1997.

“Clinton wasn’t an interventionist, he had avoided going into East Timor and Sierra Leone, but the massacres and other pressures over Bosnia were making it so that morally he almost had to do something,” he notes.

In 1994, that same political pressure to “do something” – this time from the Congressional Black Caucus – prompted Mr.  Clinton to intervene in Haiti with “Operation Uphold Democracy.”

But that same year Clinton did not intervene in Rwanda, where as many as 800,000 people were massacred in ethnic violence over just two months. Clinton now says his failure to act is the biggest “regret” of his presidency.

But one of the key factors at play in Rwanda was the accessibility of the country and the military’s ability to get in and make a difference, notes Dr. Corgan, who is also a military scholar.

“Rwanda is hard to get to. It raised questions for the military like: Where do you stage out of?” Corgan says.

That contrasts with the Balkans, which were “a quick flight from our bases in Italy,” he adds. “In any kind of humanitarian intervention, the question of ‘How hard is it going to be to do?’ usually trumps the moral worth of the cause.”

Why not Syria?

In Aleppo, all three of the key factors that typically determine intervention – the president’s convictions, the complications of intervening, and public pressure – are dissuading Obama from committing more forces, experts say.

From the first year of his presidency, in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, Obama suggested he would be a reluctant interventionist guided by the “just war” doctrine, which dictates action when the ability to do good is apparent.

“The ‘just war’ theory says that you may have a moral cause, but if you can’t win and all you’re doing is getting more people killed, you have no reason for intervening,” Corgan says. “From that perspective, Obama has good reason not to get involved in Aleppo and Syria.”

Obama has largely avoided entanglement in Syria diplomacy, leaving what he sees as a nearly impossible task to Secretary of State John Kerry. But when he has broached the topic, he has made it clear he sees little likelihood US intervention could do significant good.

It would take a large deployment of US troops to “stop a civil war in which both sides are deeply dug in,” Obama said in a CNN town hall event last month. Even then, he added, there would be a “limit to what we can do” until the parties accept that the war has no military solution.

Other factors offer further complications. Russia’s presence in the fight could risk turning any major American intervention into a big-power confrontation. And there has been little public pressure to save Aleppo.

Aleppo Media Center/AP/File
In this file frame grab taken from video on Aug. 17, 5-year-old Omran Daqneesh sits in an ambulance after being pulled out of a building hit by an airstirke, in Aleppo, Syria.

“It really seems that Obama has been spared that piece of the typical push to intervene,” says Henriksen. Even the so-called “CNN effect” – by which pictures of human suffering prompts a clamoring for action – doesn’t seem to be operating, he says.

The sight of Omran Daqneesh, the dazed and bloodied Syrian boy photographed in an Aleppo ambulance, roused pity but no call to action, Henriksen says. “After Iraq and Afghanistan, nobody wants to do this [intervening] anymore. Obama doesn’t think we can fix a broken Syria,” he adds, “and the public doesn’t, either.”

The legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan

The failures of those other wars has left Americans increasingly dubious about intervention, experts say. In that way, Obama is a reflection of broad public sentiment.

“Obama can wring his hands and say what is happening over there is terrible – which it is – but he just is not gong to launch another Mideast war,” Corgan says.

Others say that Obama has been so resolutely disinclined to moral interventionism that they doubt he will ever second guess his response to Aleppo the way Clinton has his to Rwanda.

“Obama is so predisposed against intervention that I can’t ever see him saying ‘I regret’ over Aleppo,” Henriksen says.

That may be, but there are some suggestions that the rigorously pragmatic president is wondering if he gave the moral dimension sufficient attention.

“I do ask myself, ‘Was there something that we hadn’t thought of?’ ” Obama says in a November Vanity Fair interview with the presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin. Declaring that “Syria haunts me constantly,” Obama says he wonders if another leader, faced with the same wrenching crisis, might have come up with a better response.

“Was there some move that is beyond what was being presented to me that maybe a Churchill could have seen,” Obama says, “or an Eisenhower might have figured out?”

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.

QR Code to From Aleppo to Rwanda, when is a president morally forced to act?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today