(NeewsWeek - Those who advocate modest military measures to stop or at least slow the mass murder of Syrian civilians by Russia and its Assad regime client should not evade the patently unfair question they are often asked: "Are you willing to risk World War III?"
As important as it is to defend civilians—for both humanitarian and policy reasons—the answer, of course, must be no. And even if world war is a remote possibility, any circumstances possibly bringing the armed forces of nuclear powers into contact are troublesome.
But what of those who use the World War III ploy to argue for continued American passivity (coupled with soaring, empty rhetoric) in the face of defiant, unspeakable atrocities executed by those who have come to count on total impunity? Are they answerable for nothing in terms of risk?
If Russian President Vladimir Putin concludes, on the basis on American behavior in Syria, that Uncle Sam is an empty suit—willing to talk about everything but stand for nothing—is that a risk-free outcome in Syria and the world beyond?
If anything at all has been learned from the past five years of Levantine murder and mayhem, it is this: What happens in Syria does not stay in Syria. Even if it did—as Obama administration senior officials hoped it would, way back when—American passivity in the face of mass homicide would still have raised questions and inspired objections, both moral and policy-related.
But nothing about this abomination has been contained within Syria, other than a ruling family and an enabling entourage preserved by Russia and Iran.
No comments:
Post a Comment