What’s
Wrong Today:
The
most depressing thing heard yesterday was from Mr. Obama:
Assad regime, which is involved in a civil war…will have received a pretty
strong signal, that in fact, it better not do it again.
We must
teach Assad a lesson. After all, we have a Responsibility to
Protect, (R2P).
R2P is a UN initiative established in 2005. It is an aspirational set of
principles, based on the claim that sovereignty is not a right, but a
responsibility. R2P focuses on preventing and
halting four crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic
cleansing, which it places under the generic umbrella term of Mass Atrocity Crimes. R2P has three pillars:
- A
state has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war
crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing; - The
international community has a responsibility to assist the state to
fulfill its primary responsibility; - If
the state manifestly fails to protect its citizens from the four above
mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene
through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Military
intervention is considered the last resort.
However,
it is not clear who makes this decision on behalf of the “international
community”. Nor is it clear who has the responsibility to protect, except the
UN, it doesn’t mention the US.
Conor
Freidersdorf in The Atlantic hits
the nail on the head:
(emphasis by the Wrongologist)
news accounts on pressure to intervene in Syria made it clear that the “growing
calls … for forceful action” aren’t coming from the people, or Congressional
majorities, or an expert consensus. The
pressure is being applied by a tiny, insular elite that mostly lives in
Washington, DC, and isn’t bothered by the idea of committing America to
military action that most Americans oppose. Nor are they bothered by the
president launching a war of choice without Congressional approval, even though
Obama declared as a candidate that such a step would be illegal. Some of
them haven’t even
thought through the
implications of the pressure they’re applying.
Why is the
Main Stream Media legitimizing pro-war
pressure? Why are they describing it as the prevailing story line,
despite the fact that the people who are applying the pressure represent a clear
minority position? Why does the MSM ignore the pressure against intervention, that
is to say, the majority position?
“Legitimacy” in these circles is a matter of
social standing and institutional affiliations, not track record. Americans are
well aware of the disastrous mistakes made by these elites, having suffered from
their performance in Vietnam, the Bay of Pigs, Beirut, Iraq, Afghanistan, and
Libya.
The MSM is
reporting about how Mr. Obama’s credibility depends on his deciding to strike
Syria. They say the president’s credibility hinges on him doing something just
9% of Americans want him to do. “Credibility” to them means his
credibility among the people who matter.
That is, the DC chicken hawks who
inflate their importance with glib answers to tough questions and by otherwise acting
tough.
Finally, from Moon
of Alabama, it is
looking like the effort to round up the usual suspects to form another
“coalition of the willing” is not progressing smoothly:
Cameron faces resistance not
only from the Labour party but from a significant part of his fellow
conservatives. A rush by Cameron today to get a Libya like UNSC resolution for
“all necessary force” to “protect civilians” in Syria was
rejected by Russia and China who insisted on voting only after getting results
from the UN observers in Syria.
In Europe, Poland,
Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany and Norway have, for good reasons, spoken out
against any use of force against Syria. Austria blocked its airspace for
any air operation related to Syria. The Arab League blamed the chemical
incident on the Syrian government but rejected endorsement of any
punitive measures.
The Turkish premier
Erdogan, who would also like to strike Syria, is like Cameron running into problems with
his own party. He also has a huge problem with the tanking Turkish Lira and
rapidly increasing interest rates. The Turkish economy is currently taking a
deep dive which is at least partly to blame on Erdogan’s aggressive foreign policy.
Don’t
know about all of you, but the Wrongologist is not part of the “willing”. The
Syria discussion looks a lot like Iraq 2.0, Obama edition, just scarier because:
- It
is taking very little time, effort (and so far, flimsy evidence) to sell it
- The
American people are, if possible, even less skeptical now than they were in
2001-2003 during the marketing of the intervention against Iraq
- The
fact that this is Obama and not some Republican seems to be blinding a lot of
liberals who would be screaming bloody murder if it were, say, Chris Christie in the
White House
It
would be nice to trust Mr. Obama more than we trusted Mr. Bush, but a
politician is a politician. If he supports the use of “humanitarian
bombings” and it turns out that the allegations against Syria are false,
or just inconclusive, or a false flag operation by actors inside or even
outside Syria, what will THAT say about Mr. Obama’s “credibility”?
He
has to do more than consult with Congress. Congress needs to put their names
and reputations on the line with an up or down, roll call vote on intervention.
If Obama
fails to intervene in Syria, his credibility among the American people won’t
suffer at all. If the DC pundits want to intervene in Syria, let them be the
first Americans to hit the beach.
Agree. It may be worthwhile to consider the fate of Jordan and Turkey, allies (more or less) but if that is what we are doing, articulate it, get Congress on board, and have both use their armed forces in concert with Western forces.