I wonder: If President Obama had said instead that the US will absolutely not intervene in Syria, how many of the same people would be marching with the same red-painted hands? We have two values — humanitarianism and pacifism — and we don’t seem to be paying much attention to what happens when the two conflict. With smug 20-20 hindsight, we scorn Chamberlain and the failures of the League of Nations, but we have this magical belief that the UN, NATO, etc., will function without hard choices. It’s healthy and admirable to have a vigorous debate about how to respond to the use of poison gas in Syria – but it’s not admirable or healthy to act like this is coming out of the blue without a context. You’d have to have been asleep for the last three years to say that a strike against Assad = a strike against Syria ... and asleep for the last 45 years to feel sanguine about the possibility of a surgical, limited engagement. Anyone suggesting that there is a simple, or obvious, or righteous option is delusional. This may be the toughest and most complex challenge we’ve ever faced. I wouldn’t want to be making this decision. Let’s hope that in spite of past bad choices there’s still a constructive option to be found.
Posted on: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 14:39:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015