In Rwanda the United States had a free hand to impose a solution if the U.S. government had so chosen. If Obama had decided to intervene in a major way early on in the Syrian civil war the same would have applied, only it would have required an American/NATO occupation of the country to carry it out. Obama was not willing to do that and now it is far too late. We have only two options: either sit back and watch the Syrians die; or risk a military confrontation with Russia and all that implies. Which would you say is the lesser of the two evils?
"For those of us who generally admire President Obama as a man of principle, it is wrenching to watch his paralysis. As I see it, Syria has been his worst mistake, a huge blot on his legacy."
A blot on his legacy? You are the master of understatement! The carnage in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan continues unabated. "Paralysis" is not even close to describing Obama's utter incompetence and ineptness. I would go further and call it what it really is. Obama is consumed with his rationale for leaving behind his legacy. But it is not a rationale. It is pure cowardice.
That is the word that the NYT, you and everyone else is loathe to use. But it is accurate.
Obama is afraid of leading. He is afraid of making a decision and of assuming the full responsibility of the Office of President of the United States. He is in living in fear of the consequences of acting as leader of the world's greatest power.
Being the leader of the free world and the United States means sometimes you have to take risks to maintain leadership. It means projecting power economically, and militarily. It means not being afraid.
Obama has had countless opportunities to act and lead. Obama has chosen to retreat. Assad, Putin, China, North Korea and ISIS all read that as fear. They read it as cowardice.
North Korea has nuclear weapons. China builds islands and claims all of the South China Sea, Iraq and Afghanistan are consumed by war and of course, Syria and Russia continue to wage war against innocents.
A blot on his legacy? You are the master of understatement! The carnage in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan continues unabated. "Paralysis" is not even close to describing Obama's utter incompetence and ineptness. I would go further and call it what it really is. Obama is consumed with his rationale for leaving behind his legacy. But it is not a rationale. It is pure cowardice.
That is the word that the NYT, you and everyone else is loathe to use. But it is accurate.
Obama is afraid of leading. He is afraid of making a decision and of assuming the full responsibility of the Office of President of the United States. He is in living in fear of the consequences of acting as leader of the world's greatest power.
Being the leader of the free world and the United States means sometimes you have to take risks to maintain leadership. It means projecting power economically, and militarily. It means not being afraid.
Obama has had countless opportunities to act and lead. Obama has chosen to retreat. Assad, Putin, China, North Korea and ISIS all read that as fear. They read it as cowardice.
North Korea has nuclear weapons. China builds islands and claims all of the South China Sea, Iraq and Afghanistan are consumed by war and of course, Syria and Russia continue to wage war against innocents.
3
My goodness. Does this mean you are finally starting to "get it".
5
"""For those of us who generally admire President Obama as a man of principle, it is wrenching to watch his paralysis. As I see it, Syria has been his worst mistake, a huge blot on his legacy.""" Shame on you for even saying it when in fact you do not have at your disposal the tools and information to make an informed decision. Adding discourse and venom to an already painful and devastating situation there at the war zone, and here in our own "free of war" land is not commendable... It is cowardice and irresponsible opinion spouting. You sound like Donald Trump. Thank goodness you are not a candidate. As it stands, as if you already did not know it, it is not only upon the President, it is a SHAME shared by and including the Congress, the Senate, the opinion givers in the Situation Room in Washington.
28
Mr. Kristof, you look of possible fighting age.
You go first and we will follow.
You go first and we will follow.
45
PBO's also deported so many people splitting families between the US and their home countries.
People wonder why Trump's doing much better among Hispanics than PBO did four years ago...well it is the deportation, private prisons for people being deported, etc. In twenty years ...we will see a spate of apologies and faux excuses for this absolutely deplorable and inhumane treatment of the undocumented in our country.
The people of Syria deserve better and so do the undocumented; but, hatred of the other is a major facet of America's id.
People wonder why Trump's doing much better among Hispanics than PBO did four years ago...well it is the deportation, private prisons for people being deported, etc. In twenty years ...we will see a spate of apologies and faux excuses for this absolutely deplorable and inhumane treatment of the undocumented in our country.
The people of Syria deserve better and so do the undocumented; but, hatred of the other is a major facet of America's id.
6
Nick, how do you wash the blood off of your hands? Supporting our evil policy of government overthrow by arming proxy fighters to wage chaos and destruction has made you implicit in the slaughter. Where do you get off opining about others suffering while shilling for the mayhem and death? We are not passive in any of this, and to suggest that we are, is irresponsible at best.
22
Only Congress can declare war. Obama cannot bomb runways in Syria without violating the U S Constitution and international law. Blame the Republican led Congress,
21
Show me a columnist with a child deployed, and I will show you a dove.
27
Mr. Kristoff wants us to jump in between two guys in a knife fight. We aren't passive in Syria. We support anti-ISIS forces. And if we support attacks on the Assad regime we will find ourselves fighting on BOTH sides. Isn't this worth mentioning? On the other hand I agree with Mr. Kristoff that this is just too much evil for us to accept. We have to do something. But we must admit to ourselves what this really means.
17
Well Mr. Kristoff, how amazing it is that you have become yet another in the many varieties of war monger. As one classified 4W under the Selective Service Act, I'll stay civil. I suppose you yourself will be one of the ones to be set down in Syria for the purpose of straightening out all of this? Naw, you're just gonna sit back and talk about the weaknesses of others, just like Trump. Oh my, the irony, the irony. You're not going anywhere. You're home safe and sound. We used to hear cases, like the ones you tout, every day during our Vietnam era. Remember that?
16
There is no easy answer for West Syria where the Assad Regime is battling the Moderate Terrorists backed by the CIA.
But, there is a solution for East Syria where the DOD backed Kurds and their Arab Tribal Allies are winning the war against Isis despite being underfunded and under-equipped.
Before getting into the middle of the Russians, Iranians and Regime vs the Moderate Terrorists in West Syria, the First Thing we should do is arm the Kurds directly. The Second Thing we should do is to have Turkey make peace with the Kurds.
As the neither US nor Turkey is going to defeat and occupy Isis in the Euphrates Valley, the only alternative to Isis Islamists or a Shiite Superstate is to a have a Kurdish/Arab Semi Autonomous Region occupying and existing the area known as Al Jazeera (the Island).
This haven would be an American Protectorate similar to Iraqi Kurdistan, and would achieve 2 vital strategic goals:
1) defeating Isis and Al Queda, and
2) creating a Secular Sunni Buffer Zone between Iran/Iraq and West Syria.
A Secular Al Jazeera would:
1) reduce Iran/Iraqs fear of Sunni Jihadis
2) reduce Saudi and Gulf State fears of a Persian Shia Superstate dominating the region.
But, there is a solution for East Syria where the DOD backed Kurds and their Arab Tribal Allies are winning the war against Isis despite being underfunded and under-equipped.
Before getting into the middle of the Russians, Iranians and Regime vs the Moderate Terrorists in West Syria, the First Thing we should do is arm the Kurds directly. The Second Thing we should do is to have Turkey make peace with the Kurds.
As the neither US nor Turkey is going to defeat and occupy Isis in the Euphrates Valley, the only alternative to Isis Islamists or a Shiite Superstate is to a have a Kurdish/Arab Semi Autonomous Region occupying and existing the area known as Al Jazeera (the Island).
This haven would be an American Protectorate similar to Iraqi Kurdistan, and would achieve 2 vital strategic goals:
1) defeating Isis and Al Queda, and
2) creating a Secular Sunni Buffer Zone between Iran/Iraq and West Syria.
A Secular Al Jazeera would:
1) reduce Iran/Iraqs fear of Sunni Jihadis
2) reduce Saudi and Gulf State fears of a Persian Shia Superstate dominating the region.
5
We should say to Putin, if you get rid of Assad and enforce a ceasefire in Syria we will bow out of the Ukraine.
2
Maybe we shouldn't have killed Assad's older brother.
Oh, I'm sorry...that was just a movie.,,
Oh, I'm sorry...that was just a movie.,,
1
The world has long relied on American leadership. Without it, during the past 8 years, millions have been needlessly sacrificed. Thank you President Obama.
12
As usual the gung ho military worshippers want to remove Assad without a backup plan in place. Fools fail to realize that based on the experience of what happened to Iraq when the Sunni were extricated because of the so called "people's choice" supported by us. NO REPLACEMENT for Assad will give fair jurisprudence to every sect in Syria. So the pursued option is either one loyal to the U.S. or Russia, but Russia was invited there so we need a hands off policy. The animosity, centuries based throughout history shows how difficult installing a government that serves all sides involved can be. Is there any intelligent life in the White House at all?
10
Question. What would cratering runways do if most of the barrel bombs are dropped from helicopters? Last I heard, people invented helicopters so that you didn't need runways.
9
Mr. Kristof: "Key to making this happen is to remove Mr. Assad."
Written by you as though there were no horrific unintended consequences after our ill-advised removals of Saddam Hussein and Mohammar Quadaffi.
Be careful what you wish for, Mr. Kristof.
"Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it."
Written by you as though there were no horrific unintended consequences after our ill-advised removals of Saddam Hussein and Mohammar Quadaffi.
Be careful what you wish for, Mr. Kristof.
"Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it."
27
Look how wonderfully our intervention in Darfur, that were advocating, worked out, as well as our ill faded assist to overthrow Qaddafi. Both were almost as ill-advised as our enormous blander invading Iraq.
Above all, any intervention should NOT do more harm than the alternative.
What happened to the extraordinary clarity that you exhibited in your measured and thoughtful cautionary warnings against the invasion before the Iraq War?
Above all, any intervention should NOT do more harm than the alternative.
What happened to the extraordinary clarity that you exhibited in your measured and thoughtful cautionary warnings against the invasion before the Iraq War?
8
As Kristof says "...everything is always more complex than it seems. " Cratering the Syrian military runways with missiles fired from Turkey sounds good now, but what happens when the Syrian or Russian Air Force counter attacks and we are now forced, under NATO, into direct military conflict? The unintended consequences of the Afghan and Iraqi adventures has led to unending wars, refugee crisis, ISIS and the Syrian civil war. Despite the good intentions of saving civilian lives, someone needs to explain to me how further American military involvement in this conflict will make the situation better. And while you're at it, please explain how far and for how long will the American people support expending more blood and treasure in the Middle East to protect Syrian civilians when we are unwilling to accept a small number of Syrian women and children war refugees?
8
All over the world, people feel distraught by the suffering being inflicted on the Syrian people. America has a lot do to with that cruel civil war for two reasons.
First, radical Islamic jihadism was created/flourished after the American invasion of Irak. Second, the US government is actively involved in financing and arming anti-Assad terrorist outfits such as Al-Quaeda Syrian filial, the Nusra front.
From an ethical/moral and religious standpoint, it is understandable Nicholas Kristof's call for boots on the ground to stop the Syrian carnage. From a political angle, however, the American people are fed up and tired with unwinnable and costly Middle East's wars.
First, radical Islamic jihadism was created/flourished after the American invasion of Irak. Second, the US government is actively involved in financing and arming anti-Assad terrorist outfits such as Al-Quaeda Syrian filial, the Nusra front.
From an ethical/moral and religious standpoint, it is understandable Nicholas Kristof's call for boots on the ground to stop the Syrian carnage. From a political angle, however, the American people are fed up and tired with unwinnable and costly Middle East's wars.
11
This submission is only about line 1 in Picks no. 3:
soxared: "Mr. Kristof, this is cheap and mean-spirited, using a mere girl to illustrate the horror of Syria."
If not this girl who?
All too many of those who comment today seem to have little or no idea of what is happening in Aleppo. One,Ken New York, illustrates this all too well when he writes that European countries like Sweden and Germany (the two taking the greatest number of Syrians per capita population) should simply send them all back to Syria (URL to my reply at the end). Clearly Ken needs to listen Ban al-Abed.
My Swedish colleague Thyra and I spent two hours this afternoon with a few asylum seekers, one of them who arrived from Aleppo exactly 5 months ago yet can already converse with us in Swedish. He talked with his family yesterday all of whom could be killed at any minute when the next bomb falls on some part of Aleppo. How is it possible for so many NYT commenters know as little as Ken about what has happened and continues to happen every day in Aleppo? Can somebody please explain, even by sending an Email to me (Gmail at my blog below)?
Sweden, population about 10 million took in at least 60,000 Syrians last year a few of whom it is my good fortune to know. Send them back to Aleppo? Are you all crazy?
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/opinion/the-blot-on-obamas-legacy.html...
soxared: "Mr. Kristof, this is cheap and mean-spirited, using a mere girl to illustrate the horror of Syria."
If not this girl who?
All too many of those who comment today seem to have little or no idea of what is happening in Aleppo. One,Ken New York, illustrates this all too well when he writes that European countries like Sweden and Germany (the two taking the greatest number of Syrians per capita population) should simply send them all back to Syria (URL to my reply at the end). Clearly Ken needs to listen Ban al-Abed.
My Swedish colleague Thyra and I spent two hours this afternoon with a few asylum seekers, one of them who arrived from Aleppo exactly 5 months ago yet can already converse with us in Swedish. He talked with his family yesterday all of whom could be killed at any minute when the next bomb falls on some part of Aleppo. How is it possible for so many NYT commenters know as little as Ken about what has happened and continues to happen every day in Aleppo? Can somebody please explain, even by sending an Email to me (Gmail at my blog below)?
Sweden, population about 10 million took in at least 60,000 Syrians last year a few of whom it is my good fortune to know. Send them back to Aleppo? Are you all crazy?
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/opinion/the-blot-on-obamas-legacy.html...
8
Honestly, did Kristof write about the human condition when the coalition forces bombed Iraq and Libya to smithereens? Surely, several thousand civilians died there; this sort of selective writing is what leads to selective tunnel vision and coerced action.
8
Syria is a battleground in the war between Sunni and Shiite Islam, Saudi Arabia and Iran, Russia and the West, secular and sectarian authority, and progressive and regressive visions for the future. I see little chance of US intervention changing the complexity or violence of the situation. It has occurred to me that the best we could do is create a safe corridor for mass evacuation of the innocent, but how would we know who is innocent and who is not? And where would they go once evacuated? If we were to eliminate Assad, who and what would replace him?
I think Obama has been wise to steer clear, as tragic as the situation is. Syria is a problem for the Islamic world to resolve. If they are unconcerned about the civilian deaths, including the children, shame on them, but it's their shame, not ours.
I think Obama has been wise to steer clear, as tragic as the situation is. Syria is a problem for the Islamic world to resolve. If they are unconcerned about the civilian deaths, including the children, shame on them, but it's their shame, not ours.
6
I think we could get clarity on this issue if we stopped using the euphemism "rebel forces" in place of the reality: ISIS. Instead of trying to demonize Assad and Putin, American pundits might ask whether the US has been playing a progressive role in Syria by arming and supporting ISIS. They might also ask whether the US played a progressive role in destabilizing and eventually helping to bring down a legally elected government by supporting anti-Semitic putschists. And they might ask themselves if they were devastated by the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died over two decades of US bombardment and sanctions.
While the US actively backs backward forces in the Mideast, it accuses Russia of being dangerous. In fact, Russia is a status quo player: it's foreign policy is consistently aimed at preventing the spread of Islamist power near or within its borders. You don't have to be a fan of Putin to be honest about what's going on. Calling the Obama administration to account for its role in Syria could be an important move to prevent a direct super power confrontation.
While the US actively backs backward forces in the Mideast, it accuses Russia of being dangerous. In fact, Russia is a status quo player: it's foreign policy is consistently aimed at preventing the spread of Islamist power near or within its borders. You don't have to be a fan of Putin to be honest about what's going on. Calling the Obama administration to account for its role in Syria could be an important move to prevent a direct super power confrontation.
5
There are Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya where people die every day, despite being under occupation of American forces or having American-friendly governments. Why wouldn't the author direct his attention to these countries? Or lives of people in these countries are less valuable, because they were the result of the the American intervention? Really, putting these countries in order is much more valuable service the US can do to the world and to reputation of the US, than to create another mayhem in the Middle East.
7
It is easy talking about empathy for one little girl like Bana. There are million of children like her from syria living in camps in turkey, jordan and the lebanon. These kids have no access to medical care and schools.
If you mean it, start with saving them. You even do not need to meddle with the mayhem inside syria, just facilitate the situation in the countries around syria.
If you mean it, start with saving them. You even do not need to meddle with the mayhem inside syria, just facilitate the situation in the countries around syria.
9
Russia has escalated the conflict. Given our position and resources, any counter-escalation will end up doing more harm than good.
If we shoot down Russian aircraft (with Syrian or Russian crews) or crater Assad’s airstrips (maybe killing a Russian or two), Russian aircraft operating from the Crimea and the Caucasus could do the same to our airbase at Incirlik in Turkey. You can bet that Turkey will not try to stop Russian aircraft crossing Turkish airspace to retaliate when American aircraft do it all the time. That leaves us using airbases in Italy, the UAE, and maybe even Afghanistan (plus carriers, which the Navy would probably not risk against a first-rate air and submarine force).
Is this the result of strategic failures? No. Much more than Iraq or Afghanistan, Syria is on Russia’s doorstep, a place where we should not try to win a limited shooting war. Our only plausible paths are to act the peacemaker even though Assad is in a position of strength or to pull out.
This is a terribly complex region and we need get past our obsession with ISIS if we are to act in our interest and the interest of civilians trapped in the Syrian civil war.
If we shoot down Russian aircraft (with Syrian or Russian crews) or crater Assad’s airstrips (maybe killing a Russian or two), Russian aircraft operating from the Crimea and the Caucasus could do the same to our airbase at Incirlik in Turkey. You can bet that Turkey will not try to stop Russian aircraft crossing Turkish airspace to retaliate when American aircraft do it all the time. That leaves us using airbases in Italy, the UAE, and maybe even Afghanistan (plus carriers, which the Navy would probably not risk against a first-rate air and submarine force).
Is this the result of strategic failures? No. Much more than Iraq or Afghanistan, Syria is on Russia’s doorstep, a place where we should not try to win a limited shooting war. Our only plausible paths are to act the peacemaker even though Assad is in a position of strength or to pull out.
This is a terribly complex region and we need get past our obsession with ISIS if we are to act in our interest and the interest of civilians trapped in the Syrian civil war.
4
I sometimes forget that Mr. Kristoff is a Republican. Then he writes a column like this.
I know he means well, the situation there is horrible on many levels, but after both of W's calamitously run wars, the American people have no stomach for more similar involvement in that part of the world.
If Obama was looking out more for American interests than Syrian, sorry, but that is what he is supposed to do. He was not elected Sheriff of the Known World.
I know he means well, the situation there is horrible on many levels, but after both of W's calamitously run wars, the American people have no stomach for more similar involvement in that part of the world.
If Obama was looking out more for American interests than Syrian, sorry, but that is what he is supposed to do. He was not elected Sheriff of the Known World.
13
OBAMA'S PARALYSIS In intervening in Syria is, I sincerely believe, more a factor of events than his own timidity. I am more than a little annoyed at Nick Kristof for not calling out the monsters in Syria and Russia for the slaughter they're perpetrating. It's very easy for Nick to be an armchair general and disregard the calculus that Obama must make in confronting both Syria and Russia. The risks with Russia's involvement are far higher than in confronting Syria alone. Putin has shown that he will retaliate if the US any other nations interfere. He has refused to sell the West tons of plutonium, radioactive material that we wanted to get out of his hands. Putin is not above providing some that atomic material to the Syrians and Iranians as well as other bad actors, if other nations interfere too forcefully in the war. The British were being starved out because the Nazis wanted to destroy them by sinking supply ships, using the enigma machines to keep their operations secret. The Brits were on the verge of hunger. Had the enigma code not been broken, they might have starved. The Russians are already hacking our government websites. They have succeeded in breaching our digital communications. Obama is not in the position of being able to explain himself fully, because talking about secret defensive measures would threaten homeland security. I find Nick's omissions as reckless and unprofessional, though I agree completely with protecting innocents in wars. PEACE!
4
You know what Kristof, I really just don't care. She's going to die. But that's what people do, they die. And it's not always fair.
The US military is not supposed to be the free world morality police. What does the average US citizen gain from these foreign intervention fiascos? Are we supposed to go in like superheroes to every place in the world where bad things are happening?
The US in Syria just prolongs the fighting and as a result more people die. Let Russia and Assad win and restore order to that quagmire, it's no skin off my back. Then maybe I'll stop having to read these ivory tower sob stories. But no, because Obama wants to draw a "line in the sand" he picks a faction to back and antagonizes Russia. Some faction that is supposedly more morally upright than Assad. Right. As if.
I don't want my tax dollars going to sad little girls in some far off wasteland, I want them going to sad little girls in the USA. People that look like me and are citizens of the country I live in. Let the other people wage war on each other.
The US military is not supposed to be the free world morality police. What does the average US citizen gain from these foreign intervention fiascos? Are we supposed to go in like superheroes to every place in the world where bad things are happening?
The US in Syria just prolongs the fighting and as a result more people die. Let Russia and Assad win and restore order to that quagmire, it's no skin off my back. Then maybe I'll stop having to read these ivory tower sob stories. But no, because Obama wants to draw a "line in the sand" he picks a faction to back and antagonizes Russia. Some faction that is supposedly more morally upright than Assad. Right. As if.
I don't want my tax dollars going to sad little girls in some far off wasteland, I want them going to sad little girls in the USA. People that look like me and are citizens of the country I live in. Let the other people wage war on each other.
14
I am so hearth broken. I have been reading about this war for a while now. I understand that resolution is very unlikely in the near future. However, how difficult is to provide protection for these civilians? Why are we not doing anything and allowing Putin and Assad to massacre these children? We know, we see and we hear it and we still do not do anything. How many more dead children have to be shown????
At the end of the day, the responsibility for this mess lays squarely on the shoulders if Assad and Putin.
3
much as the author would like, we cannot solve all the problems of the world, it is a terrible situation,
but as long as most of us continue to live our lives with lesser goals, there will always be war
but as long as most of us continue to live our lives with lesser goals, there will always be war
2
Syria is a religious war at this point. As of today, it has very little to do with Assad or Democracy or anything like that. It is Sunni Islam vs Shia/Alawite Islam.
This is the Islamic reformation, and it will only end when either the Sunnis kill all the Shia and other offshoots (only like 10% of Muslims are not Sunni). If we open our borders and let everyone in, this war will never end. It will just keep going until the US and Europe either house every Shia on earth, or the Sunni Islam becomes more like modern Catholicism.
I don't believe that the United States has an obligation to become involved in a religious war 5000 miles away. It is the obligation of the Islamic majority countries in the region to solve this problem.
If we are going to let anyone in, they should be the atheists and the Christians caught in the crossfire and that's it. I'm fine with letting am atheists Syrian family in, but to just import more Sunnis whose children will be radicalized by their religion to kill Americans is not smart.
I hate religion. Religion has killed more people than anything in human history. I don't want more religious people in my country, especially a religion that seems to come out of the 15th century.
This is the Islamic reformation, and it will only end when either the Sunnis kill all the Shia and other offshoots (only like 10% of Muslims are not Sunni). If we open our borders and let everyone in, this war will never end. It will just keep going until the US and Europe either house every Shia on earth, or the Sunni Islam becomes more like modern Catholicism.
I don't believe that the United States has an obligation to become involved in a religious war 5000 miles away. It is the obligation of the Islamic majority countries in the region to solve this problem.
If we are going to let anyone in, they should be the atheists and the Christians caught in the crossfire and that's it. I'm fine with letting am atheists Syrian family in, but to just import more Sunnis whose children will be radicalized by their religion to kill Americans is not smart.
I hate religion. Religion has killed more people than anything in human history. I don't want more religious people in my country, especially a religion that seems to come out of the 15th century.
8
NIck,
I get your point. Syria is a human tragedy.
How can the US help?
What can citizens do to help the Syrians? especially the children?
I would like to get more involved. I am sending money to aid organizations and I don't want to be one of the ones who said "if only we had known."
So please, let me know what I can do as a citizen to help my fellow human beings.
Signed,
concerned and desperate
I get your point. Syria is a human tragedy.
How can the US help?
What can citizens do to help the Syrians? especially the children?
I would like to get more involved. I am sending money to aid organizations and I don't want to be one of the ones who said "if only we had known."
So please, let me know what I can do as a citizen to help my fellow human beings.
Signed,
concerned and desperate
4
How many young Americans are you willing to see die to save Syrians from themselves, assuming that can be done? How can Russia be persuaded to quit protecting Assad? What will happen to Syria if Assad resigns to a comfortable life somewhere, anywhere but Syria? None of your suggestions address my questions.
12
Yes, it is horrible. So, where are the rest of the Free World forces -- why aren't they frothing at the bit to solve these terrible problems in Syria? I can tell you. They are hanging back, avoiding messy entanglements, spending the money on their own people and infrastructures, waiting for the U.S. to fulfill its never ending obligation as policeman to the world.
I agree with the commenters who want to pin a medal on Obama for keeping us out of this to the extent he has. You're just an armchair quarterback who sees easy solutions. There are no easy solutions. Remove Assad and all you will have is further chaos as rival factions turn against each other for control. There will not be peace in the Middle East until the people of the Middle East demand it and stop looking to outside forces to mandate it.
I agree with the commenters who want to pin a medal on Obama for keeping us out of this to the extent he has. You're just an armchair quarterback who sees easy solutions. There are no easy solutions. Remove Assad and all you will have is further chaos as rival factions turn against each other for control. There will not be peace in the Middle East until the people of the Middle East demand it and stop looking to outside forces to mandate it.
13
President Obama's conservative approach to U.S. involvement in Syria's civil war is a shrewd exercise of judgment, not a mistake. If the criterion for military action is to be to abate the horrors of war and their worst effects --death and displacement of the civilian population -- then why criticize him for restraint just in Syria? What about South Sudan, Somalia, the Central African Republic, the Congo, Yemen, Mali, Nigeria and Libya, just to name just a few? These conflicts and others have resulted in millions of deaths and refugees. Worldwide, according to the U.N., there are 65 million people displaced by
violence, including 20 million refugees. Is it a "huge blot on his legacy" that the President has not acted militarily in these other conflicts? Are Syrian lives more valuable than lives in other war-torn areas? The U.S. cannot function as a Deus ex machina, involving itself in foreign conflicts where no critical national interest is at stake. As Mother Teresa said, "love begins at home." We have pressing problems in this country -- education, poverty, infrastructure, healthcare, unemployment, drug addiction, etc. -- that need immediate action, but, somehow, government tells us that there's not enough money to fix them. This country needs to readjust its priorities. Continuing to engage in misbegotten, expensive foreign conflicts at the expense of our needs at home is a recipe for ruin. If the Vietnam War didn't teach us anything, I don't know what will.
violence, including 20 million refugees. Is it a "huge blot on his legacy" that the President has not acted militarily in these other conflicts? Are Syrian lives more valuable than lives in other war-torn areas? The U.S. cannot function as a Deus ex machina, involving itself in foreign conflicts where no critical national interest is at stake. As Mother Teresa said, "love begins at home." We have pressing problems in this country -- education, poverty, infrastructure, healthcare, unemployment, drug addiction, etc. -- that need immediate action, but, somehow, government tells us that there's not enough money to fix them. This country needs to readjust its priorities. Continuing to engage in misbegotten, expensive foreign conflicts at the expense of our needs at home is a recipe for ruin. If the Vietnam War didn't teach us anything, I don't know what will.
14
I am horrified and sickened by events in Syria and the campaign of murder conducted by Assad.
We should have known that Assad would do absolutely anything to hold power. We also should have taken into account the stake Russia has in maintaining a Syrian ally.
Syria has a sophisticated air defense system. When U.S. aircraft are shot down, how will we react; with what sort of response or escalation? How will Russia be involved?
I understand that barrel bombs are dropped by helicopter. Cratered runways do not stop helicopter flights. How to crater the runways? Manned aircraft may be shot down. If we use cruise missiles, how do we insure that one of them does not kill a group of Russians on the ground?
Can we could work some sort of deal with the Russians whereby they tell Assad that if he does not leave they will back off and let us kill him?
What happens after Assad? For all our efforts in the area many people of the mid-East regard America as a power which seeks merely to occupy, oppress and exploit them.
Ending the horror in Syria would be worth their opprobrium.
I cannot fully evaluate the Lister paper at this time. The entire civilized world must be brought to see that years cannot pass at the rate of hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths per year.
All I can say to President Obama is that any plan supported by a strong international coalition and executed with intelligence and restraint will, historically, be seen as honorable if not admirable.
We should have known that Assad would do absolutely anything to hold power. We also should have taken into account the stake Russia has in maintaining a Syrian ally.
Syria has a sophisticated air defense system. When U.S. aircraft are shot down, how will we react; with what sort of response or escalation? How will Russia be involved?
I understand that barrel bombs are dropped by helicopter. Cratered runways do not stop helicopter flights. How to crater the runways? Manned aircraft may be shot down. If we use cruise missiles, how do we insure that one of them does not kill a group of Russians on the ground?
Can we could work some sort of deal with the Russians whereby they tell Assad that if he does not leave they will back off and let us kill him?
What happens after Assad? For all our efforts in the area many people of the mid-East regard America as a power which seeks merely to occupy, oppress and exploit them.
Ending the horror in Syria would be worth their opprobrium.
I cannot fully evaluate the Lister paper at this time. The entire civilized world must be brought to see that years cannot pass at the rate of hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths per year.
All I can say to President Obama is that any plan supported by a strong international coalition and executed with intelligence and restraint will, historically, be seen as honorable if not admirable.
3
If Kristof has his way, the US would be perpetually at war, always invading or bombing some people somewhere who are behaving abominally except of course Russia or China. The fact that tome and again, this strategy has disastrous results dismays him not at all.
If Kristof has a child, let him send him/her to be killed or maimed in some doomed effort to make some obscure people live more reasonably with their neighbours
If he has no child to send, let him be silent
If Kristof has a child, let him send him/her to be killed or maimed in some doomed effort to make some obscure people live more reasonably with their neighbours
If he has no child to send, let him be silent
13
You are right that cratering air strips is a small step and there are really no easy solutions to these problems without making things worse. You and others in comments say Assad has to go as if that will solve anything. Hussein had to go, Gaddafi had to go, Bin Laden had to go. They are all gone and atrocities like Aleppo are still with us. Could we have done more in Rwanda? Yes, possibly but we could have actually made things worse. Surely we need to monitor the Russians and develop sensible strategies before taking action. In fact, that is what Obama seems to be doing. However, more interventions at any level in these civil wars are not in the best interests of the US and the people we are trying to help. We need to provide as much humanitarian aid as possible and make sure it gets to the right people. We need to continue work like the peace corps and appreciate our volunteers in countries around the world that could be the next Syria. But we can not use our military to try to force democracy in countries that are not ready for it.
3
The finger pointing is pathetic. The tragedy that is unfolding is no one individuals fault (aside from Assad). To place so much blame at the feet of the President is disingenuous to the point that you have lost a serious amount of credibility at least as far as this reader is concerned. I understand the philosophy behind the idea that "all it takes for evil to thrive is for good men to stand by and do nothing" (paraphrase) but, you conveniently ignore or willfully omit the political pressure the president faced from a war weary populace and an intransigent GOP who wanted nothing more than to see the total failure of the President. Is it unreasonable at all to believe that if Obama had attempted to do more in Syria, they would have taken every opportunity to use it as a political weapon against him? So who exactly are we blaming?
7
The entire middle east is a cauldron of religious and ethnic hatreds, rivalries and permanent battles between factions interrupted for short periods by peace and false hope. All of this is underwritten by unshakeable belief that each faction acts for the true will of god and an economic situation that ensures that winners of battles with do well while those excluded will be locked in a broken, barely functional economy that has not advanced due to the internal suppression of learning and knowledge, coupled with the unfortunate aspects of the "resource curse" (oil) which sees a few prosper while many are little more than beggars. Permanent war.
Can we fix these problems if we manage to solve the immediate ones of death and destruction? If not, what is the goal in intervention and how does it relate to a larger strategy on not intervening again and again, which involves great cost in treasure and lives along with the general condemnation of the world? What's the plan, man?
We squandered X trillions of dollars trying to give birth to a democratic, peaceful society in Iraq, even spending 100 million a year to rebuild public media like television, radio and newspapers. We could have re-surfaced most of the major roads in America with that money or upgraded thousands of schools, providing better pay for teachers. Instead, we flushed it down a rathole in the desert.
Is the path to peace more war? If so, at what price?
Can we fix these problems if we manage to solve the immediate ones of death and destruction? If not, what is the goal in intervention and how does it relate to a larger strategy on not intervening again and again, which involves great cost in treasure and lives along with the general condemnation of the world? What's the plan, man?
We squandered X trillions of dollars trying to give birth to a democratic, peaceful society in Iraq, even spending 100 million a year to rebuild public media like television, radio and newspapers. We could have re-surfaced most of the major roads in America with that money or upgraded thousands of schools, providing better pay for teachers. Instead, we flushed it down a rathole in the desert.
Is the path to peace more war? If so, at what price?
9
Articles such as this one seem rather naive. It seems to posit a world in which the USA stands idly and peacefully by while bad guys lay waste to places like Aleppo. The USA is then urged to intervene and save the victims as if we had nothing to do with the mess. Of course it is also arguable that we did have something to do with the mess--in the case of Syria and the middle east our two Iraq wars help destabilize the order of the middle east leading to ISIS and the Arab Spring. In any event it is assumed that our intervention will make things better when recent history provides a good argument that our military presence in the middle east is destructive. In any case nations act only when they think it is in their best interest not really to help anybody. I say "think it is in their best interest." It may not be. We have made lots of mistakes both intervening and not intervening. Really no one nation or coalition of nations can step outside the bubble and set the world aright when there is disorder. It only tends to increase the disorder. What the world needs is a real functioning UN, but we are a long way off from that
6
I deeply respect Mr. Kristof's demonstrated humanitarian concerns, but I am not convinced that US military action will reduce the violence. In fact, the very statement seems an oxymoron. Is there a credible opposition to support? I haven't seen it. We're not talking about this or that local militia, we're talking about an opposition with the military strength, political savvy, and public support to govern or share in governance with a consensus. They would have to be able to resist the better funded and better armed radical groups, and they would have to be able to stop further sectarian bloodshed. I don't see that happening. Targeted actions, like those described, to degrade the Syrian military sound easy, but they are not. What would the Russian response be? I don't ask that out of fear, but simply to remind readers that we would have to be ready to up the ante in the face of any Russian responses. I'd support doing that, if I saw a viable endgame -- I don't, so we might end up escalating the violence we were trying to prevent, in a tit for tat battle with Russians, with no viable political or military endgame in sight. And what if degrading the Syrian military reduces their ability to resist the extremist forces in sizeable parts of the country? Will we have to take over that job too? Mr. Kristof mentions Rwanda, but has the world cared about the varying degrees of violence and misery in central Africa. Not much. We can't stop all violence, especially with more violence.
7
I don't see a convincingly better alternative to what we're doing. Russia is given scant mention in this article, but it's the grizzly bear in the room. The existing government, backed by Russia, commits egregious war crimes against its own citizens. Those seeking to topple the government are a mixed bag of factions, including ISIS, that we would consider worse than the Assad regime. To bomb runways to stop the government's war crimes may provide relief to civilians, but it carries it own risks. To create "safe zones" ultimately means taking and holding territory that would not only have to be militarily defended but through our presence would make us a target. And to think we can magically "force" the major factions to the negotiating table to create a stable new government with broad support? The end of this misery may have to wait for the heartless to find their hearts when all else is lost.
5
Neither Obama nor his "progressive" supporters could care less about any of this. Too inconvenient.
4
It seems that the neoliberal plan is to foster continuous war among the Islamic nations as a way to weaken them and keep the money flowing. The Bush 100 year goes on.
4
This is a good article, but it does not really present options and there are few good options.
In Syria, we have the fundamental problem that there are two groups of people in Syria that can't stand each other. On the government side, we have the Shia Alawite faction led by Assad. Assad's Syria never was a security concern for the U.S. or Israel. On the other side, we have the Sunni factions 1) the Sunni arabs that include the militarily effective Al Nusra and ISIL, other ineffective Sunni arab factions, and 2) the Kurds. The U.S. militarily supports the Kurds and some ineffective Sunni Arab factions, but does not support Al Nusra which is aligned with Al Qaeda or ISIL. If Al Nusra or ISIL wins, this would be a real security problem for the U.S.
I really think American lives are too valuable to put them in the middle of a civil war as a kind of police force. Such an act will result in American soldiers being shot at by all parties. There can be more air power, but does equalizing the force on the two sides this really do any more than drag this conflict out, leading to more loss of life? I think it would. There is no doubt that many fewer lives would have been lost if Assad could have suppressed the revolt immediately. You really have to consider the loss of life will be much higher in a "fair fight" that lasts much longer. War is brutal. Even a bad peace can be better than an extended war.
In Syria, we have the fundamental problem that there are two groups of people in Syria that can't stand each other. On the government side, we have the Shia Alawite faction led by Assad. Assad's Syria never was a security concern for the U.S. or Israel. On the other side, we have the Sunni factions 1) the Sunni arabs that include the militarily effective Al Nusra and ISIL, other ineffective Sunni arab factions, and 2) the Kurds. The U.S. militarily supports the Kurds and some ineffective Sunni Arab factions, but does not support Al Nusra which is aligned with Al Qaeda or ISIL. If Al Nusra or ISIL wins, this would be a real security problem for the U.S.
I really think American lives are too valuable to put them in the middle of a civil war as a kind of police force. Such an act will result in American soldiers being shot at by all parties. There can be more air power, but does equalizing the force on the two sides this really do any more than drag this conflict out, leading to more loss of life? I think it would. There is no doubt that many fewer lives would have been lost if Assad could have suppressed the revolt immediately. You really have to consider the loss of life will be much higher in a "fair fight" that lasts much longer. War is brutal. Even a bad peace can be better than an extended war.
27
Where oh where are the Muslim countries? This religion is so deeply held by its adherents that they use it to rule the state and to run every aspect of its culture. But where are they when their brethren are in crises?
They hate us for meddling and choosing sides, but when it comes to Syria all we hear is "if only the US would come in and save the day".
They hate us for meddling and choosing sides, but when it comes to Syria all we hear is "if only the US would come in and save the day".
19
Different Muslim countries are pouring money, weapons, and men into the conflict--some on one side, some on the other.
2
Of course they're helping to fight each other. I'm talking about helping to put a stop to it.
Kristof urges us to make war directly against the Syrian government and its ally, Russia. He seems to assume the Russians would put their tail between their legs and obey a no-fly zone edict unilaterally imposed by the U.S. military while the U.S. military attacks Syrian military installations--all this taking place in Russia's backyard. A dangerous assumption. If we are to go to war directly against Syria that must be expressly authorized by Congress. The president, although the commander-in-chief, does not have the power to make war directly on another sovereign nation to save the lives of civilians in that nation. And assuming Congress did give the president authority to wage war directly against the Syrian military, and by extension its ally the Russian military, what is the end game? And what would happen to the Syrian Christians and Alawites (Shias) were the Sunni rebels the U.S. supports to win out against the Syrian government, would we step in to stop the slaughter? What support is there among Americans for a direct war with the Syrian government and the Russian military?
One thing the U.S. could do to stop the slaughter of civilians would be to stop supplying the Saudis with weapons they use to indiscriminately bomb Yemen.
You can show all the pictures of cute puppies suffering that you want, but that will not persuade me that getting into a direct war with the Syrian government and Russian military is a sound idea.
One thing the U.S. could do to stop the slaughter of civilians would be to stop supplying the Saudis with weapons they use to indiscriminately bomb Yemen.
You can show all the pictures of cute puppies suffering that you want, but that will not persuade me that getting into a direct war with the Syrian government and Russian military is a sound idea.
13
Nations have interests, not morals. If we had morals a hundred thousand Iraqi citizens might be alive today. Let's ask my favorite international terrorist, Dick Cheney, about morality in the Middle East. I hold him personally responsible each time I read about another bombing in Baghdad. We don't even know who we are supporting in the Syrian civil war. We call them moderate rebels as if we could parse one rebel from another. Bana and her family will be killed regardless of our hand wringing. As to Obama's line in the sand regarding chemical weapons, we crossed that line ourselves in Vietnam contaminating the country with Agent Orange. And let's not forget McNamara's favorite 'Nam appetizer, napalm flavored crispy fried children. It's all Kissinger would eat.
4
Mr. Kristof:
it is impossible for you to admit your errors in your understanding and comprehension of the multiple forces at war with one another in the Middle East.
you consistently and vastly oversimplify the conditions and circumstances that arose to place miss Bana al-Abed in harms way - - - and way too early in her young life.
"we" have been down this path before,
Mr. Kristof,
the U.S.A. is not the world's police force.
nor should it be said that the president is remotely responsible for choosing between two despicable armed thugs who are waging an unconscionable, indiscriminate slaughter within and without the artificial borders dictated by outsiders.
further,
by what U.S. law would the president be operating under to exercise the type of intervention that you prefer?
this is not a school yard in Yamhill upon which some watchful and caring adult supervisor can successfully separate two bullies from knocking their fellow students off of the playground equipment during recess.
lastly,
your use of a child to further your own personal opinion is quite simply the worst use of your podium to date.
your pathetic behavior on this subject is stunning and no longer acceptable.
grow up, quickly - - -
for there are situations, particularly in our own country, that we can make better.
10
Let's look at some of the efforts of the United States and/or NATO to intervene in Civil Wars in other parts of the world: Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya come to mind. How did those work out? Obviously some of those interventions are still in the process of working out or more accurately, not working out. Why is it realistic to think that Syria, which is probably a bigger mess and far more complicated than any of those situations, would work out better? Add to the mix in Syria - the fact that Russia is deeply involved there - and greater US involvement would inevitably lead to clashes between the world's two "greatest" nuclear powers and one might begin understand President Obama's hesitancy. Despite the power and might of the US military and the abilities of the men and women in the armed forces, the US simply cannot control what happens in most of the rest of the world. Ultimately what happens in Syria will be determined by the people in Syria. President Obama's policy is a wise one.
6
What Mr. Kristof is not mentioning is that the Russian and Syrian forces are targeting terrorists that use civilians as human shields.
These terrorists, some of which are supported, trained, funded and armed by the US government are the reason why thousands could not leave Aleppo in the past years and why bombs are killing more civilians than terrorists as here are no more "rebels" or even moderate opposition fighters but nearly entirely extremist terrorists who have but one goal and that is top create another Afghanistan in Syria to have a starting point for the next step and this into Europe.
Courtesy of the power vacuum that the US has created with its idea of "regime change" in Syria".
But that would simply destroy the human factor of the story.
In fact, had the US not started and supported this civil war by falsely promising the "rebels" help and by destabilizing Syria, these civilians would not have to suffer the way the do.
So writing against the Russian and Syrian forces who are fighting against terrorists that hide behind children will not help.
These children are the human shields behind which the US and GCC state sponsored terrorists are hiding in combat.
If Mr. Kristof wants to help these kids, he needs to make his government understand that all they have done is to support terrorists while pretending to fight them.
Would these terrorists have their way, these kids and women would be slaves and IS would be on the move towards Europe.
These terrorists, some of which are supported, trained, funded and armed by the US government are the reason why thousands could not leave Aleppo in the past years and why bombs are killing more civilians than terrorists as here are no more "rebels" or even moderate opposition fighters but nearly entirely extremist terrorists who have but one goal and that is top create another Afghanistan in Syria to have a starting point for the next step and this into Europe.
Courtesy of the power vacuum that the US has created with its idea of "regime change" in Syria".
But that would simply destroy the human factor of the story.
In fact, had the US not started and supported this civil war by falsely promising the "rebels" help and by destabilizing Syria, these civilians would not have to suffer the way the do.
So writing against the Russian and Syrian forces who are fighting against terrorists that hide behind children will not help.
These children are the human shields behind which the US and GCC state sponsored terrorists are hiding in combat.
If Mr. Kristof wants to help these kids, he needs to make his government understand that all they have done is to support terrorists while pretending to fight them.
Would these terrorists have their way, these kids and women would be slaves and IS would be on the move towards Europe.
5
Though his approval rating is at 55%, Obama has been variously carped and castigated by his harsh critics, for his lackadaisical responses to calamities, especially man-made. As quixotic as he is, Obama also may not have made much headway in capturing the Dem. honcho, Bill Clinton's heart completely, who could not hide his visceral vitriol for Obama, since 2008, although Bill gave a rousing 2012 DNC speech, in support of Obama's re-election bid. Bill's recent gibes at ACA was a latest testimony to that.
Obama's torpid talks, on Syrian red line crossing, were ridiculed and slammed by his GOP adversaries and right leaning news channels alike. Also, his prosaic and humdrum speeches, on China's and Russia's hooliganism, and on the whole middle eastern area itself, were even bemoaned by his staunch supporters. In addition, his gun control and comprehensive immigration plans went nowhere.
Yet another thorn, in his foreign policy adventure, was his hurried and perceived half-baked approach towards the theocratic Iranian hardliners. The Iranian comports in international waters were rapidly and quite noticeably putrefying. One only hopes Obama abjures his professorial attitudes and resorts to more assertive roles to bring thugs to justice.
Obama's torpid talks, on Syrian red line crossing, were ridiculed and slammed by his GOP adversaries and right leaning news channels alike. Also, his prosaic and humdrum speeches, on China's and Russia's hooliganism, and on the whole middle eastern area itself, were even bemoaned by his staunch supporters. In addition, his gun control and comprehensive immigration plans went nowhere.
Yet another thorn, in his foreign policy adventure, was his hurried and perceived half-baked approach towards the theocratic Iranian hardliners. The Iranian comports in international waters were rapidly and quite noticeably putrefying. One only hopes Obama abjures his professorial attitudes and resorts to more assertive roles to bring thugs to justice.
As long as Assad is alive, this goes on. With all these bombs dropping It would be a shame if some untoward accident were to happen to him. Let the Russian's cry foul afterwards.
Is this a tragedy of epic proportions? Yes, it is. Is there a sensible solution without sacrificing massive amounts of American lives? No, there is not. In addition, going to war against Russia could result in a world war. Does anyone think this is a sensible course of action? I would challenge anyone pressing for American intervention to enlist themselves or their children and then see how many are eager to intervene. Put the draft back in place and watch the sudden turn of opinions.
10
Obama has been passive on everything - from unemployment among African American youth to poisoned water in Flint to Wall Street criminals. Why should we expect him to take action on Syria?
And the "blots" just keep on coming.
The 500,000 black Christians slaughtered by Arab ethnic Junjaweed in Darfur- while President Obama states that "Christians did worse things during the medieval period." And the USA does nothing.
President Obama permits Russia to annex the Crimea and invade the Ukraine. And the USA does nothing.
The President trades 400 million dollars on a secret flight to Tehran,m in an unmarked foreign airliner with foreign banks fronting the deal, while the USA pays ransom to Iran for the return of a few hostages. And the Presidnet thinks we are dumb enough not to notice and to tell us that that we anyway owed some money to Iran from 1978. Yeah, sure.
The President states that Americans do not have to give up their doctors or health care plan, while Obamacare implodes and the NYT helps to mislead its readership, with the help of Nobel economics Laureate Paul Krugman, who never saw an Obama plan he could not support. And small businesses, the US economic growth machine , sheds jobs due to the failure of Obamacare. And Hllary lies in lockstep with the President,m while it is left to Bill Clinton to tell the truth about Obamacare.
Russian now has a military base in Syria, and along with Iran, humiliates the USA almost daily, while it slaughters as it wishes. But at least we do not do "stupid stuff."
Race relations in the USA reach a nadir despite the first black President.
Lot of "blots."
The 500,000 black Christians slaughtered by Arab ethnic Junjaweed in Darfur- while President Obama states that "Christians did worse things during the medieval period." And the USA does nothing.
President Obama permits Russia to annex the Crimea and invade the Ukraine. And the USA does nothing.
The President trades 400 million dollars on a secret flight to Tehran,m in an unmarked foreign airliner with foreign banks fronting the deal, while the USA pays ransom to Iran for the return of a few hostages. And the Presidnet thinks we are dumb enough not to notice and to tell us that that we anyway owed some money to Iran from 1978. Yeah, sure.
The President states that Americans do not have to give up their doctors or health care plan, while Obamacare implodes and the NYT helps to mislead its readership, with the help of Nobel economics Laureate Paul Krugman, who never saw an Obama plan he could not support. And small businesses, the US economic growth machine , sheds jobs due to the failure of Obamacare. And Hllary lies in lockstep with the President,m while it is left to Bill Clinton to tell the truth about Obamacare.
Russian now has a military base in Syria, and along with Iran, humiliates the USA almost daily, while it slaughters as it wishes. But at least we do not do "stupid stuff."
Race relations in the USA reach a nadir despite the first black President.
Lot of "blots."
1
As the slaughter of Syrian innocents goes on, where are the marches of outrage in Europe and on American campuses? An actual genocide and....nothing? Where's BDS's statement of sympathy and solidarity? Where are the calls to boycott all Russian artists, athletes, academics, et all?
Oh wait, there's no Israel or Jews to blame for these actual, intended arab deaths, so I guess it's whatever...
Further, when Pres. Obama declared a red line against Assad in the event of further aggression, wasn't it the GOP that threatened, essentially, impeachment if he didn't get authorization from Congress for any action? And didn't the GOP Congress then refuse to ever hold hearings or take a vote? So why isn't the blood really on the hands of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner here and the rest of the GOP caucus?
Oh wait, there's no Israel or Jews to blame for these actual, intended arab deaths, so I guess it's whatever...
Further, when Pres. Obama declared a red line against Assad in the event of further aggression, wasn't it the GOP that threatened, essentially, impeachment if he didn't get authorization from Congress for any action? And didn't the GOP Congress then refuse to ever hold hearings or take a vote? So why isn't the blood really on the hands of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner here and the rest of the GOP caucus?
3
The solution is simple. Syria should attack Israel. Israel will fight back. Then, the whole world will come to Syria's defense. There will be huge demonstrations in the street, the UN Security Council will take up the matter, and the EU will get involved. Otherwise, forget it. Nobody cares when it's Muslims killing other Muslims.
4
Allah has willed it so.
1
Thank you Nicholas. This is a courageous article considering the mood prevalent in America today. You will not get rounds of applause for this - and yet what you wrote is basic common sense.
The Arab Sunni community is being slaughtered in Syria while the world gesticulates from afar and does nothing about it. What people refuse stubbornly to understand is that this inevitably feeds extremism. Obama is bombing ISIS; but on the long run he is playing into the hands of ISIS or whatever organization will come after it. There is a Sunni tragedy currently unfolding in the Middle East - especially in Syria and Iraq. It must be stopped for moral but also political reasons. That means intervention along the lines you suggested. The price for Obama's failed strategy is already very high - for Syria itself, the Middle East, Europe, and even America - and will get higher still if the paralysis in American foreign policy continues.
The Arab Sunni community is being slaughtered in Syria while the world gesticulates from afar and does nothing about it. What people refuse stubbornly to understand is that this inevitably feeds extremism. Obama is bombing ISIS; but on the long run he is playing into the hands of ISIS or whatever organization will come after it. There is a Sunni tragedy currently unfolding in the Middle East - especially in Syria and Iraq. It must be stopped for moral but also political reasons. That means intervention along the lines you suggested. The price for Obama's failed strategy is already very high - for Syria itself, the Middle East, Europe, and even America - and will get higher still if the paralysis in American foreign policy continues.
1
Legacy has become much used word without much
substance. Bill Clinton's legacy was the abolition of
Glass-Steagall Act which spawned financial crisis
in 2007-08 when banks recklessly indulged in
risky investments. The crisis caused enormous
hardship with loss of jobs, homes and bailouts. We know George W Bush's legacy. Now Obama's legacy is chaos
in Libya and Syria. The last good legacy was of Eisenhower
when America was booming, America was respected, people lived by good values. Everything has been downhill since
the assassination of JFK.
substance. Bill Clinton's legacy was the abolition of
Glass-Steagall Act which spawned financial crisis
in 2007-08 when banks recklessly indulged in
risky investments. The crisis caused enormous
hardship with loss of jobs, homes and bailouts. We know George W Bush's legacy. Now Obama's legacy is chaos
in Libya and Syria. The last good legacy was of Eisenhower
when America was booming, America was respected, people lived by good values. Everything has been downhill since
the assassination of JFK.
1
In case anyone has forgotten, on reason Mr. Obama was elected, was to take out of these Middle East conflicts. After thousands of young Americans died in Iraq, the people have said, no more.
I fully agree Assad has to go, but how to get rid of him.Of course the simple solution would be a cruise missile. Jut tell him to stop, or else, but where would that put the U.S. assassinating a foreign ruler, not a real good option.
We are not going to put American troops on the ground as long as Obama is president, the people have told him so. We will not be shooting down Russian planes, or Syrian planes for that matter. The rest of the civilized world has to take some responsibility for this. The best we can do at present, is break their banks, make them pay until their citizens say stop also. Put Russia into bankruptcy, then they will stop as they did in Afghanistan.
I fully agree Assad has to go, but how to get rid of him.Of course the simple solution would be a cruise missile. Jut tell him to stop, or else, but where would that put the U.S. assassinating a foreign ruler, not a real good option.
We are not going to put American troops on the ground as long as Obama is president, the people have told him so. We will not be shooting down Russian planes, or Syrian planes for that matter. The rest of the civilized world has to take some responsibility for this. The best we can do at present, is break their banks, make them pay until their citizens say stop also. Put Russia into bankruptcy, then they will stop as they did in Afghanistan.
4
What is sad about this piece is the blame of the president. This crisis began years ago and many world leaders are part of the problem.
Political violence is part of our humanity. Political violence is like cancer it has no idea what body it has infected, young or old, nice or mean, it simply does its thing and that is death and kills randomly. Like cancer political violence is profoundly complicated and should not be brought to a level of sound bites and opinion pieces. And like cancer it is only going to be abated by a massive effort involving all of our humanity all of our strength, will, and what is left of our love for others. As much as we Americans like to think ourselves guilt free that is the consummate fallacy as we saw in the years between 1933 and 1945.
Political violence is part of our humanity. Political violence is like cancer it has no idea what body it has infected, young or old, nice or mean, it simply does its thing and that is death and kills randomly. Like cancer political violence is profoundly complicated and should not be brought to a level of sound bites and opinion pieces. And like cancer it is only going to be abated by a massive effort involving all of our humanity all of our strength, will, and what is left of our love for others. As much as we Americans like to think ourselves guilt free that is the consummate fallacy as we saw in the years between 1933 and 1945.
1
Millions are killed in conflicts throughout the world. The US could not possibly intervene in all of them and even if it did there is no reason to think that the results would be better than they were in Iraq (for example).
Why exactly does Kristof insist that the US intervene militarily in Syria in particular?
Why exactly does Kristof insist that the US intervene militarily in Syria in particular?
5
Let foreigners die with their depraved, historically blood-drenched collectivism. Let them learn the cost of opposing individualism. American foreign policy should be limited to defending the individual rights of Americans. Our century+ of Progressive-altruist wars, starting w/the Spanish-American war, should end. America needs a selfish foreign policy.
5
It would take a tremendous amount of force to stop the carnage, including the risk that we could go to war with Russia. Making things more impossible is that Russia and Assad kill bearers of humanitarian aid. We cannot right all the world's wrongs, and we never could. Sad to say, but I agree with Obama that we should leave that quagmire to the Russians. They are unlikely to commit enough force to wipe out the rebels, so worst case scenario will be a long-term standoff.
3
Anyone who has paid attention knows the atrocities that are happening in Syria, Mr. Kristof. Why are you placing blame on President Obama? Things were going very well until Mr. Putin brought Russia into the mix. Do you want
World War III?
It's easy to sit around and say what "should" be done and trample on our leaders. It's quite another thing to have the decision on your shoulders,.
No World War III. President Obama, our next President and other World leaders will have to come together to find a solution. Perhaps it's for the United States and our allies to pull out altogether - all money, troops and weapons - and let those in the region fight with each other. Let Russia and Iran fight it out. Every supposed "leader" in the area has a personal agenda and perhaps we should let them play their destructive game to the end. Of course, that is why the Middle East is not more advanced - constant religious wars. One key thing when we leave is to not allow asylum for those with the most money. They always flee and leave the destruction and clean up for the people they and societies they allowed to be destroyed. Make them stay and live with their decisions and things might change.
One thing is certain - there is no easy answer and the press needs to simply report and stop trying to "fix" it until/unless they are willing to run for election and take full responsibility.
World War III?
It's easy to sit around and say what "should" be done and trample on our leaders. It's quite another thing to have the decision on your shoulders,.
No World War III. President Obama, our next President and other World leaders will have to come together to find a solution. Perhaps it's for the United States and our allies to pull out altogether - all money, troops and weapons - and let those in the region fight with each other. Let Russia and Iran fight it out. Every supposed "leader" in the area has a personal agenda and perhaps we should let them play their destructive game to the end. Of course, that is why the Middle East is not more advanced - constant religious wars. One key thing when we leave is to not allow asylum for those with the most money. They always flee and leave the destruction and clean up for the people they and societies they allowed to be destroyed. Make them stay and live with their decisions and things might change.
One thing is certain - there is no easy answer and the press needs to simply report and stop trying to "fix" it until/unless they are willing to run for election and take full responsibility.
8
two 4 year old girls were filmed Tuesday on BBC Tuesday in Aleppo's only remaining hospital. One had picked up a cluster bomb thinking it was a toy. the other was home when her house was hit by a barrel bomb. the first child died on Wednesday. Will the hospital survive ? We are all to blame in this crisis for not pushing our legislators and POTUS to save the most vulnerable during the last 5 years. we should be brokering a deal to get Assad's family out like we did with the Shah of Iran, based on cessation of bombing his people..
1
We, NATO and the US, should ground the Syrian and Russian air forces in Syria! I was firmly against the Vietnam and Iraq Wars, but there have been times when military interventions took care of dictators and their over-reach.
I strongly support Kristof's call for US and NATO action to stop the killing of civilians in Syria, because we can, without invading the country. In writing my soon to be published historical novel on 18th century Vietnam, The Tay Son Rebellion, I finally read The Art of War by Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu warned, never invade a country and stay for a long time, it will degrade your economy and your army. He also wrote, never fight, unless it is a last resort. To win without fighting is best. He liked assassination and subterfuge.
But Sun Tzu also wrote, Attack when they are unprepared, make your move when they do not expect it, and only when you can prevail.
To follow his logic completely, we should do nothing, because he had no concern for civilian life, and the longer our enemies fight, the better for us. The Chinese use this wisdom by avoiding conflicts outside their own territory, until they expand that territory.
But our generals are probably right, we can ground our enemies' air forces in Syria. We do not have to invade. NATO can stop the ethnic cleansing from the air, and the immigration that threatens European stability.
David blogs at OnVietnamAndtheWorld.wordpress.com
I strongly support Kristof's call for US and NATO action to stop the killing of civilians in Syria, because we can, without invading the country. In writing my soon to be published historical novel on 18th century Vietnam, The Tay Son Rebellion, I finally read The Art of War by Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu warned, never invade a country and stay for a long time, it will degrade your economy and your army. He also wrote, never fight, unless it is a last resort. To win without fighting is best. He liked assassination and subterfuge.
But Sun Tzu also wrote, Attack when they are unprepared, make your move when they do not expect it, and only when you can prevail.
To follow his logic completely, we should do nothing, because he had no concern for civilian life, and the longer our enemies fight, the better for us. The Chinese use this wisdom by avoiding conflicts outside their own territory, until they expand that territory.
But our generals are probably right, we can ground our enemies' air forces in Syria. We do not have to invade. NATO can stop the ethnic cleansing from the air, and the immigration that threatens European stability.
David blogs at OnVietnamAndtheWorld.wordpress.com
2
We ignore the pain and suffering of all the children on the other side of the Syrian war. The ones that don't have marketing and advertising agencies highlighting their case.
When the Russians bomb we see videos of the victims. The US bombs we see videos from the plane. When our allies indiscriminately shell we don't see videos at all.
When the Russians bomb we see videos of the victims. The US bombs we see videos from the plane. When our allies indiscriminately shell we don't see videos at all.
4
Please stop quoting President Clinton on his regrets about Rwanda. Clinton couldn't have been less interested in Rwanda. He knew exactly what was happening, and not only did he fail to intervene he did everything in his power to sabotage any attempts to help. In his memoirs he devoted half a paragraph to Rwanda. He now piously wants us to believe he regrets his failure to stop the genocide.
5
Who's providing all the weapons to the rebels? Who are the rebels, and what interests do they represent? What is the role of Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the West in piecing up the place in the name of peace? The middle east is several times worse than when Obama and Hillary took over the White House and the State Department. Nobody asks, nobody cares.
3
That makes me really, really sad. There can be no callousness toward human life.
2
With all due respect, Mr. Kristof -- this hearts-and-flowers approach to the Syrian situation isn't doing the matter any good, outside of raising the ire and guilt of those with any moral compass, who are nevertheless sitting thousands of miles away feeling helpless.
Also, this is something you cannot possibly pin on President Obama alone, who as the leader of the country, and the father of two young girls must feel this problem in Syria keenly -- as pictures of dead chidren flash across the television screen.
If you you don't get it by now, Syria is a quagmire.
And worse than that, it is for all practical purposes an occupied land -- So getting more deeply involved there, is practically assuring an escalation of hostilities.
There is only so much this country can do.
Especially as we now stand before a very critical presidential election, where so many of our own lives hang in the balance.
In the meantime, we can only Pray for peace in Syria.
But if you still need someone to blame for this tragedy -- I suggest you start by blaming Bashar al-Assad.
Also, this is something you cannot possibly pin on President Obama alone, who as the leader of the country, and the father of two young girls must feel this problem in Syria keenly -- as pictures of dead chidren flash across the television screen.
If you you don't get it by now, Syria is a quagmire.
And worse than that, it is for all practical purposes an occupied land -- So getting more deeply involved there, is practically assuring an escalation of hostilities.
There is only so much this country can do.
Especially as we now stand before a very critical presidential election, where so many of our own lives hang in the balance.
In the meantime, we can only Pray for peace in Syria.
But if you still need someone to blame for this tragedy -- I suggest you start by blaming Bashar al-Assad.
3
I've got children in Flint Michigan and Chicago who've got lead pipes and poison water. I've got kids on the south side being executed for walking down the street and you want to fund another war?
43
Don't look up for the state to take care of your children. Do it yourself.
1
Leave aside the civilian casualties for a moment. What is the interest of the US in this conflict? Assad? A bunch of jihadists? Certainly, we would not pick either option. So, we have to go - again - with the lesser of the two evils. Only admitting that we cannot force Assad out militarily - not now with Russia involved - we then have to come to the conclusion that Assad in control of part of Syria is the lesser of the two evils. The US continues to learn nothing from the experiences of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libia; you cannot depose strongmen without a clear plan of how to replace them.
7
It is. i am afraid, a sad truth of living in this crazy world, that we cannot eliminate disasters that kill innocent, men, women and children. And the fact that we live in a wired world means that even those who are in complete denial, or numb to the pain of human suffering, may occasionally see pictures, or read the words of those who are suffering, and we feel powerless, and impatient because we want to help.
In light of this I cannot see this as a blemish on Obama''s record, but rather a blemish on each of us as part of the human species. We just have not, at this point, created a world where there is not vast human suffering one place or another. Are we ready for Syria to be the last of these painful catastrophe's?
I wish it were but it does not appear that way to me. Thanks to Mr. Kristof for the role he plays in making us aware of what is going on, but I disagree with his remedy at this time.
In light of this I cannot see this as a blemish on Obama''s record, but rather a blemish on each of us as part of the human species. We just have not, at this point, created a world where there is not vast human suffering one place or another. Are we ready for Syria to be the last of these painful catastrophe's?
I wish it were but it does not appear that way to me. Thanks to Mr. Kristof for the role he plays in making us aware of what is going on, but I disagree with his remedy at this time.
10
This has been a recurring criticism of Mr. Kristoff. While he understands that the President is very limited in what the American people will allow him to do in Syria, and he realizes that military involvement in Syria would place our military dangerously close to a Russian confrontation, he nevertheless speaks of Obama’s reticence to militarily engage as a shameful act, and a blot on his legacy.
Until somebody can lay out a cogent plan that shows how a limited involvement has a good chance to succeed without a high risk of getting trapped in a never-ending quagmire with risk of escalation with a belligerent nuclear enemy, I think the President is demonstrating the good judgment we want in our leader. Yes, it is heart wrenching to witness the suffering of the Syrian people, but escalating the situation will do them little good.
Mr. Kristoff needs to remember that the drum beat he is both hearing and amplifying comes from the same people that initiated the Mideast upheaval in 2003 when we invaded Iraq. These people are as relentless as they are shameless. Don’t join them!
Until somebody can lay out a cogent plan that shows how a limited involvement has a good chance to succeed without a high risk of getting trapped in a never-ending quagmire with risk of escalation with a belligerent nuclear enemy, I think the President is demonstrating the good judgment we want in our leader. Yes, it is heart wrenching to witness the suffering of the Syrian people, but escalating the situation will do them little good.
Mr. Kristoff needs to remember that the drum beat he is both hearing and amplifying comes from the same people that initiated the Mideast upheaval in 2003 when we invaded Iraq. These people are as relentless as they are shameless. Don’t join them!
6
This is sadly very true. There was no effort made to introduce a price to be paid for war crimes from both the Syrian leader and now the Russians. Even the idea of dropping food and medicine seems never to have been considered. It is true that Obama inherited a military and society that was quite fatigued from two wars capped by a recession, but this passivity is a big stain on an otherwise good presidency
I could not agree more about Obama's inaction regarding the Syrian genocide. I voted for him twice. I've tried to rationalize his reasons for not responding to it in some way. In this case politics is secondary to what is right morally and ethically. To watch as the Syrian people are bombed to death is heinous. I am sure it is on President Obama's conscience. Sometimes he seems to take a professorial approach. He needs to throw caution to the wind and act now. It is not about his legacy, but the people of Syria survival. He's let Putin and Assad destroy Syria. Stop Putin now even if it means using force. If not, Putin will continue his onslaught into other countries.
I think we need to form a special intervention force, which would be the first sent into any foreign war; and the last to be pulled out. The core of this force should be the two closest relatives of military age of each Senator, Representative, Cabinet member, and the President and Vice President. Then, any columnist, pundit, or talking head who supports intervention could either join or convince his own relatives to do so.
Anyone who advocated intervention without having someone in the force could then be called out for the hypocrite they would show themself to be, and I could show respect for those who were willing to put their blood on the line, even if I disagreed with them.
Anyone who advocated intervention without having someone in the force could then be called out for the hypocrite they would show themself to be, and I could show respect for those who were willing to put their blood on the line, even if I disagreed with them.
5
It is a deeply moral position to save Syria from war, destruction and tyranny. I do not see how it is practical without complete cooperation by the U.S. Russia, Europe and the regional powers. Regime change in Syria will certainly follow the other catastrophic regime changes. If Russia acts alone, then they
will find it is their problem and they doubtless know this. Putin is too cunning and Putin is drawing the U.S. unilaterally to bail him out.
We have to be smart about this and draw in partners is a diplomatic way.
will find it is their problem and they doubtless know this. Putin is too cunning and Putin is drawing the U.S. unilaterally to bail him out.
We have to be smart about this and draw in partners is a diplomatic way.
1
There aren't one or two, but dozens of blots on this angry ideologue's ruined presidency. Even Obamacare itself may not outlive his term of office.
He blew through thirty trillion dollars - more than any world leader had ever spent - and he leaves us in a world of hurt.
Federal agencies like the IRS, Dept. of Justice, and the FBI in particular are now seen as red-light districts where the law is prostituted to make life easy for lawless Democrats.
The DOJ agreeing to DESTROY evidence of Clinton aides' computers should be the thing keeping Nicholas up at night.
That information about who hacked what and which foreign friends of ours are still in danger of being discovered can't matter to you if you're a Democrat? Is that the score today?
Make Trump the Secretary of State who left thousands of national security secrets on cheap, unprotected equipment and THEN tell us how you feel.
Worse is why: she knew she'd be selling access to America to those third-world dictators to earn millions of dollars for herself.
But you're cool with that because she's in Your party. For Shame.
He blew through thirty trillion dollars - more than any world leader had ever spent - and he leaves us in a world of hurt.
Federal agencies like the IRS, Dept. of Justice, and the FBI in particular are now seen as red-light districts where the law is prostituted to make life easy for lawless Democrats.
The DOJ agreeing to DESTROY evidence of Clinton aides' computers should be the thing keeping Nicholas up at night.
That information about who hacked what and which foreign friends of ours are still in danger of being discovered can't matter to you if you're a Democrat? Is that the score today?
Make Trump the Secretary of State who left thousands of national security secrets on cheap, unprotected equipment and THEN tell us how you feel.
Worse is why: she knew she'd be selling access to America to those third-world dictators to earn millions of dollars for herself.
But you're cool with that because she's in Your party. For Shame.
2
When the decision was made to make "The leaving of Assad" the primary objective of the US Foreign Policy in Syria, our ability to do any good in Syria was for ever ceased to exist. Whenever we have abandoned "Secularism" in favor of "Democracy" in the Middle East, we have created more problems than we have solved. There ain't no way in hell that you can have Democracy in a religious and non-secular nation in the Middle East. The removal of a secular regime is invariably followed by a Theocracy, and you have seen it happen time and again. The so called Moderate Opposition is the Islamists in a different cloak. As soon as they take the control, you will have a Syrian Islamic Republic and with as many factions as there in Syria, it will be Iraq all over again, Sectarian Violence Galore!!
5
Cratering Syrian airfields would be illegal according to international law. Why doesn't Mr. Kristof discuss the lawfulness of what he proposes?
3
I'm sure the Russians would have rebuilt if but don't you see these international rules as hindering the conclusion of this war.
If we destroyed Syria's air capability by bombing their runways the Russians would continue the bombing from other locations. Probably from Iranian airbases. And then what would Mr. Kristof have us do?
5
Mr. Kristof, the world long-ago ran out of candles to memorialize the dead children lost in man's inhumanity. Meanwhile, suggest you review a common definition of insanity so as to better-appreciate Mr. Obama's reluctance to throw another log on the pyre.
6
To stop the slaughter the US only needs to ship stinger missiles to the defenders in Aleppo.
Why doesn't it ?
Why doesn't it ?
Probably because the stingers would be used against us.
3
.. because we did the same thing when the Soviets were occupying Afghanistan and we ended up having to BUY BACK the missiles from what eventually became the Taliban at $50,000 a missile
atrocities in Syria are bad, but they are just the jumping off point for what may turn out to be a worse foreign policy blunder than the invasion of Iraq. the goal of Vladimir putin to restore the soviet empire under his dictatorship was begun with the invasion or Georgia, and progressed with the invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Russian intervention in Syria has taken advantage of Obama's failure to militarily support the Syrian rebels and put an early end to the Assad regime. Putin is testing the waters in Syria to see how far he can go with indiscriminate bombing of civilians before the US will take action to stop it. so far he has been able to proceed unopposed. we can expect that if the Russians can produce a complete victory for Assad in Syria that this will green light Putin's plans for Russian expansion in Europe. First with be the invasion of the rest of Ukraine. if that proceeds with out western opposition beyond sanctions (which putin does not care about) then we can expect Russian agitation in Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania followed by a military intervention. all this hinges on what happens in Syria. its not too late to provide air cover for the rebels and take the fight to Assad. if we don't the legacy of Obama will be completely overshadowed by what comes next.
Mr. Kristof - Aren't you omitting the fact that Obama asked Congress for a vote on the war powers act as was done for Iraq and Afghanistan and was turned down because Republicans' only priority was he be a one-term President? Congress does not get a free pass on Syria.
3
Obama broke the Middle East. Now he refuses to own it.
2
Bush started the mess Obama just continued it.
2
No he didn't break nothing. The inept UN sat twiddling its thumb while the Middle East burns.
1
John must be born recently. There's a long history John before even Obama was born.
2
Nothing to be gained by pouring gasoline on that fire.
5
Well, Mr. Kristof, I am always perplexed at the reality of a person writing an entire article about Syria and not making one single reference to the blood thirst of the rebels that America is supporting, their atrocities, and religious fundamentalism. Have you noticed that in rebel occupied Syria, female journalists have to dress up to Islamic standards and cover their heads while in Assad's Syria they could wear a mini-skirt if they so decided? Clearly, Assad is a criminal. Plain and simple. What is troubling to many people is America's lack of calculations when supporting rebel fractions. Like if Iraq, Egypt, and Libya did not teach America anything. Let's say that Assad is killed and his government overthrown. What will happen in Syria? The rebels will establish a harmonious religiously diverse country? That little girl's tweets are touching, but such pictures and emotionally charged arguments are a weak foundation for sound foreign policy decisions.
7
You should re-acquaint yourself with "The Art of War". Committing resources to a cause with no possible desirable outcome is the first prohibition. Whoever wins in Syria will be non-Democratic and likely anti-Western and will commit atrocities. Nothing we can do will alter this. There is no reason to spill more American blood or waste additional billions on the hell hole in the Mideast.
5
I wonder whether Mr. Kristof can explain his opposition to the Iraq war when 100,000 Shiites had been murdered by Saddam and all UN resolutions ignored by the same criminal family that operated dungeons and detention centers across Iraq. Why do the Syrians deserve more sympathy, not to mention military intervention? And why is the US alone to be held responsible for such interventions, and not the entire international community?
4
Could it be that it is unwise for us to always grab our biggest stick and stir up the hornet's nest we call the Middle East? Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria... Laurell K Hamilton has a quote: "Is this a private fight, or can anyone join?" Let's not join every fight. Let's be for the containment and minimization of war, and let's stop making more adversaries than we know how to deal with. No more nation building in the Middle East.
3
I hired Obama to keep us out of war to the extent reasonable possible. I think he has done a pretty good job in doing that.
14
I'm not sure those like yourself really thought through what it meant to notify the world that the United States will not engage militarily. That is essentially a green light to leaders like Putin.
It's just not that simple. Avoidance has its cost. At some point it becomes less than reasonable.
It's just not that simple. Avoidance has its cost. At some point it becomes less than reasonable.
2
Given the gravity of the decision faced by the President, this column is inappropriate. If it was simple as you imply, do you not think the President would intervene? Where are the pictures of American service children crying for dead and crippled parents? Mr. Obama's most significant accomplishment may be not succumbing to emotional appeals like this. I can only hope HRC is as painfully rational. America was wasted enough.
93
The peoples of the Middle East must take the lead in solving their own problems. America cannot step in and solve their problems for them. Actually in Iraq there is progress. The Iraqi government combined with Kurdish forces are painstakingly forcing ISIS out of the country. We are helping with a small number of special forces, training and air support. If we try to do more, the Iraqis will end up hating us. The fact is, they probably already do. As to Syria? At this point it looks hopeless. If we can save the lives of innocent civilians there without getting significantly more involved in the conflicts, then yes, by all means do so. Help with refugees? Yes. Otherwise, do exactly what we're doing and nothing more.
2
Though numbers of deaths from our war involvement is often spoken of, one never hears the numbers of those maimed or severely brain damaged.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/05/496781581/former-marin...
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/05/496781581/former-marin...
2
War and any intervention comes with civilian casualties. For every "Bana" you save, you'll lose another one somewhere down the road. Heartbreaking as the loss of lives, especially innocent children, is, this column makes no sense on so many levels. However the guilt tripping heart tugging part is a sure sign that it's a good thing Mr. Kristof is not in charge because if a tweet exchange with every scared child in the world would guide your foreign policy, we'd really be in trouble. It's just not an argument a world leader can or should base his decisions on.
2
No fly zones, safe havens, taking out runways. These objectives seem doable. Let's do it.
A president does not make foreign policy upon learning about the terrible experiences of children in any other country.
3
Sir, I admire the sentiment but I'm not sure creating a shooting war with the Russians is a viable solution.
4
Mr. Kristof, with all respect, you want our troops to go fight in Syria, raise your own army and send them. Most of the American people do not want us to become embroiled in Syria which is likely to become another Iraq, an American war zone where thousands of our people will likely be killed by both Syrian forces and the Islamic State, which will relish the chance to butcher American soldiers.
Syria is a tragedy but we are no longer willing or interested in trying to right every mess in the world where a dictator wages a war of attrition against his own people. There would be no end to it.
The smartest thing Obama has done is not embroiling the U.S. military in Syria. I'm grateful to him for his good judgment and this is the one issue where I fear Hillary Clinton's judgement. I hope she is as wise.
There is no case to be made that people like me do not feel empathy for the innocent people of Syria, like this child. This war is a horror. But I also feel a deep concern for the American soldier who could be killed in action there, leaving behind a widow and orphan the same age as this girl. Let's not send him to battle until we must.
We must pick our battles wisely and feeling anguish that people in a foreign land where we have no interests and played no part in initiating the conflict - which is not threatening our national interests - are experiencing devastating suffering - is a place to say NO.
Thanks to President Obama for his wisdom. He does us proud.
Syria is a tragedy but we are no longer willing or interested in trying to right every mess in the world where a dictator wages a war of attrition against his own people. There would be no end to it.
The smartest thing Obama has done is not embroiling the U.S. military in Syria. I'm grateful to him for his good judgment and this is the one issue where I fear Hillary Clinton's judgement. I hope she is as wise.
There is no case to be made that people like me do not feel empathy for the innocent people of Syria, like this child. This war is a horror. But I also feel a deep concern for the American soldier who could be killed in action there, leaving behind a widow and orphan the same age as this girl. Let's not send him to battle until we must.
We must pick our battles wisely and feeling anguish that people in a foreign land where we have no interests and played no part in initiating the conflict - which is not threatening our national interests - are experiencing devastating suffering - is a place to say NO.
Thanks to President Obama for his wisdom. He does us proud.
7
Increasing our military involvement in the Syrian civil war and against the recognized government of the country remains a bad idea which does not improve with repetition from Kristof or anyone else.
3
One of Obama's major mistakes regarding Syria was his red line statement. If he wasn't certain he could or would back the statement up with action, he should not have said it. This demonstrated to the bad actors/leaders of the world that Obama's threats were hollow, and may have encouraged Putin to push the envelope aggressively.
I wonder whether the obvious fallout of non-intervention in Syria will cause thinkers on a left wing now defined by broad non-interventionism to rethink their blanket denunciation of the Iraq war. Without for a second pretending that these are simple decisions, is it not clear that intervention is a profoundly "liberal" position at least half the time? Certainly, some wars are more successful than others. But Syria is surely the counter-argument to the modern retreat from muscular liberalism towards a sort of post-colonial isolationism.
1
Providing the rebels with shoulder-fired missies would at least end the practice of dropping barrel bombs from helicopters with impunity. We armed the Afghans against the Russians, why not the rebel groups against Assad and company
The President made two catastrophic errors in his Mid East policy.
He pulled out of Iraq, against military advice, while leaving behind a Shia only government bend on revenge on the former dominant Sunni. Persecuted, murdered and ethnically cleaned, many fled North, finding it safer to live Mossul and joining the Islamic State, all its disadvantage not withstanding it was still safer than staying in Iraq.
The second catastrophic error was that the President caved in on his own, self-selected "red line" in Syria. The result was a total loss of US credibility enabling Assad to begin unrestrained barrel bombing and later for Russia moved in.
As Ms. Thatcher said to a hesitant Reagan : 'This is no time to go wobbly'
Unfortunately, the Iron Lady was no longer around to instruct Mr. Obama in that first and fundamental rule of leadership.
He pulled out of Iraq, against military advice, while leaving behind a Shia only government bend on revenge on the former dominant Sunni. Persecuted, murdered and ethnically cleaned, many fled North, finding it safer to live Mossul and joining the Islamic State, all its disadvantage not withstanding it was still safer than staying in Iraq.
The second catastrophic error was that the President caved in on his own, self-selected "red line" in Syria. The result was a total loss of US credibility enabling Assad to begin unrestrained barrel bombing and later for Russia moved in.
As Ms. Thatcher said to a hesitant Reagan : 'This is no time to go wobbly'
Unfortunately, the Iron Lady was no longer around to instruct Mr. Obama in that first and fundamental rule of leadership.
Explaining what Obama should have done 5 years ago gets us nowhere.
1
No mention of the 60 Syrian soldiers killed accidently by US air strikes. The disaster is real and the US has added its share to the poor prospects for any solution. The bombing of Aleppo is the signal event of Assad's criminality and Russia and Iran's complicity. The story is vastly complicated and Kristof's take is hyperventilated emotionalism will not change the story. Any effort to militarily restrain Assad will bring the US into confrontation with Russia. The regime change mission on Assad has led the wretched innocents in Syria to this bleak circumstance.
4
Nicholas, I agree with you on this. For all his many achievements elsewhere, Obama has failed dismally on Syria. But most Americans, including those NYT reading so-called 'liberals' who generally lap up your words of wisdom when they are to their taste, do not want the USA to intervene militarily in Syria in any shape or form.
The only reason that the USA entered the First World War and the Second was that ordinary Americans were conned into it by their leaders, by the great and the good. (Pearl Harbour also helped the second time around).
Face it. Humans are solipsistic, clannish and tribal. In general, most of us don't really care (for all our crocodile weeping, our mawkish expressions of condolence, our candles, tears and prayers) what happens to anyone unless they are members of our immediate family or close friends.
The only reason that the USA entered the First World War and the Second was that ordinary Americans were conned into it by their leaders, by the great and the good. (Pearl Harbour also helped the second time around).
Face it. Humans are solipsistic, clannish and tribal. In general, most of us don't really care (for all our crocodile weeping, our mawkish expressions of condolence, our candles, tears and prayers) what happens to anyone unless they are members of our immediate family or close friends.
2
Assad's ruthless and relentless violence against civilians surely can be described as genocide. I believe international law allows any nation to intervene to stop genocide.
The question is how to do it without triggering a big power conflict. Kristof has mentioned or referenced many small steps that could be taken without a doomsday outcome.
As much as I admire President Obama, I've always believed that he is confrontation-averse. The international community has resigned itself to waiting until next year for any change in US policy toward Syria.
The question is how to do it without triggering a big power conflict. Kristof has mentioned or referenced many small steps that could be taken without a doomsday outcome.
As much as I admire President Obama, I've always believed that he is confrontation-averse. The international community has resigned itself to waiting until next year for any change in US policy toward Syria.
1
Ron you are must welcome to send your kids to confrontations. We know David Brooks send his son...
4
It's time we stop blaming ourselves for the atrocities of others. We should also stop arming and training those we think might be on "our" side in what are civil conflicts.
The real blot is the bombing of the DWB hospital in Afghanistan, the arming and aid we are providing to Saudi Arabia in their criminal war in Yemen, the arming and aiding of rebels in Libya and murder of Gadaafi that destabilized Libya and created a horrible refugee crisis where people continue to drown trying to escape.
We can't provide a viable no fly zone without US soldiers on the ground providing targeting to make sure we aren't used by the Turks, the Kurds, the Sunni's, the Shia's, ISIS, etc.,etc., etc. We don't know who the good guys are. They all have an agenda that doesn't necessarily align with saving lives. To allow any of these players access to our military personal, training, weapons for their own ends is absolutely the wrong thing to do.
We can't do this without US boots on the ground. We need real friends to do this and we don't have a reliable friend in this region.
The real blot is the bombing of the DWB hospital in Afghanistan, the arming and aid we are providing to Saudi Arabia in their criminal war in Yemen, the arming and aiding of rebels in Libya and murder of Gadaafi that destabilized Libya and created a horrible refugee crisis where people continue to drown trying to escape.
We can't provide a viable no fly zone without US soldiers on the ground providing targeting to make sure we aren't used by the Turks, the Kurds, the Sunni's, the Shia's, ISIS, etc.,etc., etc. We don't know who the good guys are. They all have an agenda that doesn't necessarily align with saving lives. To allow any of these players access to our military personal, training, weapons for their own ends is absolutely the wrong thing to do.
We can't do this without US boots on the ground. We need real friends to do this and we don't have a reliable friend in this region.
4
Theocratic autocracy has been the Muslim way for over a thousand years, with the autocrats favoring their own tribe over others. This might be changed through massive economic development assistance as a bribe for peace, but military force will never work.
2
This need not be a partisan issue. Both George H. W. Bush and Clinton did nothing about the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia until the genocide in Sarajevo became too much to bear. The lesson how we changed the outcome of that war is worth considering. And there are parallels in that Serbia was supported by Russia.
Syria will become President Obama's Sarajevo.
Syria will become President Obama's Sarajevo.
Obama wants the backing of the country but the Republican controlled Congress has dedicated itself to ensuring he fails - including Syria. Obama's hesitancy to go in is over cautiousness. What is the Republican's excuse? Politics.
If Obama goes into Syria, the GOP will ensure a catastrophe to US forces along with countless civilians and will blame it all on Obama and Hillary- of course.
If Obama goes into Syria, the GOP will ensure a catastrophe to US forces along with countless civilians and will blame it all on Obama and Hillary- of course.
1
Put the blame where it belongs. The news media. Constant coverage of suffering during the nightly news only fans flames of ???? What.? After awhile one just changes the channel or no longer reads the article and I do not think that it serves our state department or the defense department. Leadership is in short supply in this country. And why is that? Because of a very large fishbowl we have to operate under. There is no substitute for the truth but beating a dead horse to find out who beat him to death seems to be like the tail wagging the dog
2
Sorry Nicholas Kristof- but the American people are not willing to get massively involved in yet another military quagmire in the ME.
Assad has been in power since 2000 and took over after his father died- who was in power for 30 years.
The Assad family has ruled Syria for close to 50 years. It is not surprising that there are Syrians who want to overthrow this regime. We're supposed to solve this for them after 50 years?
How is this something Obama should be getting our military massively involved in? It is a civil war. We should try to help with humanitarian efforts but not with troops on the ground in yet another ME quagmire- they never work out and in the end- no one is ever grateful or happy for our involvement. They always blame us making things worse- and they are correct. Obama has showed restraint and has tried to solve this diplomatically for allowing humanitarian help to Aleppo. That is all we can do. We need to get out of the ME after the longest military involvement in our history- longer than both world wars combined. I applaud Obama for his restraint and condemn the neo cons who want us to use our military recklessly- as surely Trump would if given the chance.
Assad has been in power since 2000 and took over after his father died- who was in power for 30 years.
The Assad family has ruled Syria for close to 50 years. It is not surprising that there are Syrians who want to overthrow this regime. We're supposed to solve this for them after 50 years?
How is this something Obama should be getting our military massively involved in? It is a civil war. We should try to help with humanitarian efforts but not with troops on the ground in yet another ME quagmire- they never work out and in the end- no one is ever grateful or happy for our involvement. They always blame us making things worse- and they are correct. Obama has showed restraint and has tried to solve this diplomatically for allowing humanitarian help to Aleppo. That is all we can do. We need to get out of the ME after the longest military involvement in our history- longer than both world wars combined. I applaud Obama for his restraint and condemn the neo cons who want us to use our military recklessly- as surely Trump would if given the chance.
7
I just read through several comments disagreeing with Kristof. What I would like to know is how much worse could the results possibly be than what has already happened? I remember when the loss of life was estimated at 3000. If Obama had acted forcefully then, maybe we wouldn't be looking at half a million dead now. We are supposed to stand for something. Obama's inaction was and is a disgrace, and, yes, a blot on his legacy.
1
As an American, I can see a much worse result than what has happened. That result would be the loss of the lives of American servicemen dispatched because the President decided to play Texas Ranger to the world.
Our country should commit armed forces when American interests are attacked, or when treaty bound due to the attack on an ally. Assad, while not at all a nice person, has not attacked any of our allies nor has he attacked us. This is an internal matter in Syria, and all parties should stay out of it. While the American people have no say over the Russian government, we can hopefully control our own.
Our country should commit armed forces when American interests are attacked, or when treaty bound due to the attack on an ally. Assad, while not at all a nice person, has not attacked any of our allies nor has he attacked us. This is an internal matter in Syria, and all parties should stay out of it. While the American people have no say over the Russian government, we can hopefully control our own.
4
"Of course, we shouldn’t dispatch ground troops." -- But somehow, that always seems the next logical step, doesn't it?
1
There are no easy solutions here . What do you suggest ? That Obama sends in ground troops or he drops bombs on Aleppo ? If you choose the latter , how do you determine where he drops them so as to minimize civilian casualties whilst at the same time causing maximum damage to the Syrian army and maybe the Russians too . It's far too easy to sit behind a computer and assign blame . This is a very difficult situation and I'm not sure that anybody has any meaningful solution to this quagmire .
2
The Obama administration's lack of action in Syria is not due to the many reasons given in your editorial. The main reason is the Iran nuclear deal. Since day one in office, Obama has pursued a realignment in the Middle East with Iran as a major power. Since Iran is Assad's major regional supporter, it means that America's role must align with Iran. When viewed this way, Obama's action or inaction in Syria makes perfect sense. The phony "red lines", tepid support for the rebels, Secretary Kerry's useless diplomacy, endless acquiescence to Russian demands and undermining Israel and Sunni allies all point to American support for Iranian strategic goals in the region and support for Assad as a by product of the new alliance.
We should all stop wringing our hands about what we should do and how sad this all is. We are not backing the moderate "good guys", if they even ever existed. The carnage in Syria is not accidental and is a brutal example of the Mid East political and strategic realignment with America's blessing and pallets of cash and political support to the Iranians.
We should all stop wringing our hands about what we should do and how sad this all is. We are not backing the moderate "good guys", if they even ever existed. The carnage in Syria is not accidental and is a brutal example of the Mid East political and strategic realignment with America's blessing and pallets of cash and political support to the Iranians.
1
If you feel so strongly about getting involved in the Syrian civil war, by all means stop pontificating, pick up a gun and show your courage, if you have any, and go fight for the side you support in that country's ongoing quagmire. It's easy for you to play armchair general and commander in chief and decree which wars should be fought. It's another thing altogether for people like yourself to put your vulnerable human body on the front lines -- where, for now, your mouth is.
8
I think nick has some bodied children of his own who can go to the front lines to act out their dad's passion.
1
While no one "likes" Assad, we know almost nothing about the rebels...who may, should they attain power, be better -- or worse. US intervention has created chaos all over the Middle East. I do feel for the Syrian people who are in the middle, but I am also sorry for Saudi women whose lives are completely controlled by the mullahs and it's no better anywhere else in the Middle East that I can see, other than Israel. Best we pass on this.
2
Consider that the US is generally hated by all in Syria along with Israel and Saudi Arabia, our long time (so-called) allies. Consider that any faction that the US would support would be rejected by the Syrian public. Consider that ISIS advocates Saudi-based Wahhabi fundamentalism and its financial support likely comes from within the Saudi gulf coalition so that US involvement is and would become more and more a proxy war against Saudi Arabia. Consider that President Obama, (yes, the "President" title is used with President's names unless, apparently, they are not white males). Consider that voters recoiled against the extended Iraq war and the military over-reach that initiated it, sending the new Obama administration the mandate to extricate the US from the quagmire. Consider that the Iraq War over-reach has squandered US resources and exhausted the willingness of the US people to escalation of the US military participation in Syria.
3
WHAT would you suggest we do? I don't see a realistic alternative proposal. Have you turned Republican? There is no way to solve this problem, without causing further harm to our own country. Let Russia go down in flames, again.
3
ah, so you are not a pacifist after all. so i assume that direct military action, which could provoke war with russia, is ok for you? I assume, too, that you have family members in the military and that they are ok with your indignation, correct?
Listen, we are all appalled by what's happening in syria, but we need to revive cease fires. once assad is ousted, then what? nature abhors a vacuum. Do we want another Iraq in the region?
What is your post-assad plan? I saw your response on PBS Newshour last night. It was, basically: "i dunno."
Listen, we are all appalled by what's happening in syria, but we need to revive cease fires. once assad is ousted, then what? nature abhors a vacuum. Do we want another Iraq in the region?
What is your post-assad plan? I saw your response on PBS Newshour last night. It was, basically: "i dunno."
7
Sorry, Mr. Kristol, there is an excellent editorial in today's Times which states we SHOULD NOT BE IN SYRIA - you should read it.
Your article falls on 'deaf ears' - while I have compassion for all people, and especially children (which you selected for 'obvious reasons'), we have 18 million children in the U.S. who don't have enough food to eat everyday, and millions more with serious health and medical issues which are being ignored.
Sorry, you're on your own with your opinion - the U.S. should not be involved in other countries woes - we have enough problems in the U.S. which are challenging and expensive - don't waste more money on weapons, let's provide breakfasts and lunches to inner city children in the Bronx.
Your article falls on 'deaf ears' - while I have compassion for all people, and especially children (which you selected for 'obvious reasons'), we have 18 million children in the U.S. who don't have enough food to eat everyday, and millions more with serious health and medical issues which are being ignored.
Sorry, you're on your own with your opinion - the U.S. should not be involved in other countries woes - we have enough problems in the U.S. which are challenging and expensive - don't waste more money on weapons, let's provide breakfasts and lunches to inner city children in the Bronx.
7
Ah yes, let's throw American blood and treasure into a civil war between the government and an opposition that consists of many radicals. The victor will never love us. I agree 100% with Mr. Obama and state that the blot in his legacy would have been military intervention by America. Haven't we suffered enough in the middle east? I notice there is no outcry for intervention in Africa where many civil wars targeting civilians are ongoing. Dear Mr. Kristof, some things are not our business.
4
I'm glad Kristof is returning to his humanitarian concerns and leaving politics behind.
As for Obama's "principles", his only principle seems to be not to do anything that would require assuming responsibility.
As for Obama's "principles", his only principle seems to be not to do anything that would require assuming responsibility.
Nobody mentions this, but bombing is seen as one more solution here for peace? What part of peace did I not understand? We worked with the parties to set 1 week with no fighting in the region and then the US bombs and "accidentally" kills Assad's soldiers. Really?? I am not an expert or know the answers to the region's problems but I know one thing, this is yet again a 7th century feud being fought in the 21st century. There are enough parties in the region with enough armies to fight without us getting involved. Sunnis are getting massacred in the region by Shias. Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are all Sunni Muslims. What are they doing about it??? We should stop being the Police of the World. Our Police are having enough problems in the USofA itself.
2
Obama's worst mistake was his failure to prosecute the bush war crimes/criminals! This was a breach of his presidential duty to enforce the law! There was no issue of personal discretion in the matter and he did not do his duty. Presidents cannot pick and choose which laws they will enforce.
3
Instead mrs Obama likes to hug George w Bush, because he did not know what he was doing so God please forgive him.
1
As I agonize in this toxic election season, I keep asking myself what President Trump would do with Syria, Darfur, Norh Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. He thinks dealing with local, county, and state real estate officials is tough? He thinks he has made sacrifices? What would he do with truculent world leaders who do not care what the USA says, especially goes with nuclear weapons and the religious/political zeal to use them. It will be tough for whoever wins, but...
"The Syrian government has shown that it doesn’t respond to moral appeals but to credible threats of military force." -- Mr. Kristof
This is the world in which President Obama refuses to engage. It is why his responses seem like third-party musings. A drone is the best he can do. Literally.
That's fine for many Americans. Unfortunately, it also leads to cruelty, death and the rise of despots.
This is the world in which President Obama refuses to engage. It is why his responses seem like third-party musings. A drone is the best he can do. Literally.
That's fine for many Americans. Unfortunately, it also leads to cruelty, death and the rise of despots.
2
Syria may not be our problem, as many bloggers attest here, but Assad and Putin certainly are; and they aren't going away. Syria's importance to
Russia is as an intelligence and military base for Russia in the Mediterranean. I doubt Putin plans to send valentine cards to our navy's Mediterranean fleet any time lately. Our own Cheney-Bush cabal are the origins of this disaster; but Assad-Putin are in that same ideological mold. Thus the unwitting return to a cold war situation.
Russia is as an intelligence and military base for Russia in the Mediterranean. I doubt Putin plans to send valentine cards to our navy's Mediterranean fleet any time lately. Our own Cheney-Bush cabal are the origins of this disaster; but Assad-Putin are in that same ideological mold. Thus the unwitting return to a cold war situation.
1
I can't believe how irresponsible it is to blame Obama of the loss of life in Syria -- and how unfair. You can't look at this situation in isolation, negatively comparing it to other acts of intervention. The nightmare in Syria has unfolded in the wake of two unpopular and ill-advised wars that has exhausted the military and created a healthcare crisis for thousands of veterans. That has to be taken into consideration when considering involvement in what could be a tremendous quagmire that could resemble Vietnam in terms of the superpowers involved. The tragic loss and disruption of life has to haunt Obama. But I can't fault him for his caution to avoid starting WWIII.
5
Does anyone imagine that 7-year old girl wants to be bombed by the US?
Does anyone imagine she wants al Qaeda and ISIS and their not-so-different allies to be armed and keep killing until US policy goals are accepted by Russia?
Does anyone imagine she wants her relatives and friends to be killed until Assad leaves?
The US controls what the US does. It can try to influence what others do, but it absolutely controls what it does.
What the US is doing is part of the problem. It is not the whole problem, but it is very definitely part of the problem.
Worse, the proposals for the US to do something to fix this are all even worse than what is happening now. They make it worse, they kill more people.
Our hawks say big things about suffering 7-year old girls, but then they propose to make them suffer more, until the hawks get their policy goals.
What policy goals? To get rid of Assad? Is that alone worth all this? No, we have some other strategic policy goals that we are hiding behind the rhetoric and smoke.
We can debate what they are. None of them, nothing possible, justifies making this as it is, much less making it worse. Just stop.
Does anyone imagine she wants al Qaeda and ISIS and their not-so-different allies to be armed and keep killing until US policy goals are accepted by Russia?
Does anyone imagine she wants her relatives and friends to be killed until Assad leaves?
The US controls what the US does. It can try to influence what others do, but it absolutely controls what it does.
What the US is doing is part of the problem. It is not the whole problem, but it is very definitely part of the problem.
Worse, the proposals for the US to do something to fix this are all even worse than what is happening now. They make it worse, they kill more people.
Our hawks say big things about suffering 7-year old girls, but then they propose to make them suffer more, until the hawks get their policy goals.
What policy goals? To get rid of Assad? Is that alone worth all this? No, we have some other strategic policy goals that we are hiding behind the rhetoric and smoke.
We can debate what they are. None of them, nothing possible, justifies making this as it is, much less making it worse. Just stop.
8
I don't understand the occasional impulse I see in the comments to call foul over Kristof's portrayal of this particular syrian family. Humans aren't all that great at holding people we don't know, who aren't of our group, as being just as morally important as those we do. Giving a little information, some human faces to the numbers just strikes me as helping us understand the real consequences of a situation. It's also not as though this is something artificially tacked on. The mass suffering of civilians is an inseparable piece of this event. It should be understood and I would be disappointed if there was no attempt to help us consider this event as causing terrible suffering to people just as human as we are.
I don't what should be done in syria beyond two points. First, I would prefer not to embroil the next president in any delicate situations that could go horribly wrong. That president could still be Trump, after all. Second, I wish we took in more syrian refugees (and yes I mean my community too, not just everyone else's). That's a clear way to do some good that seems to carry much much less risk. I don't know if we should intervene militarily. I have no sympathy for the "not our problem" idea. But people far more knowledgeable than I seem in great conflict over whether we'd just make things worse.
I don't what should be done in syria beyond two points. First, I would prefer not to embroil the next president in any delicate situations that could go horribly wrong. That president could still be Trump, after all. Second, I wish we took in more syrian refugees (and yes I mean my community too, not just everyone else's). That's a clear way to do some good that seems to carry much much less risk. I don't know if we should intervene militarily. I have no sympathy for the "not our problem" idea. But people far more knowledgeable than I seem in great conflict over whether we'd just make things worse.
1
As much as I admire Obama and what he has accomplished in office, this is one criticism that sticks, and has legs to boot.
But Obama didn't do nothing in vacuum. There was the Republican Party that refused to support anything, any and every thing, that President Obama proposed, even when they were the ones demanding action. Witness Donald Trump's contradictory stances on Syria. There is the American public, tired of war and its casualties and convinced more Americans will die in the sand (not an unfounded fear) as involvement grows, while simultaneously ignoring 230 years of American history and assiduously avoiding military duty themselves.
Military experience by itself does not confer any special knowledge in the initiation and conduct of conflict. Case in point: George W. Bush. But there is military experience as lived by Eisenhower, John Kennedy, George H. W. Bush and then there is military experience as lived by Dubya. Obama is without either, and this is to his, and our, and most of all the citizens of Syria's detriment.
But Obama didn't do nothing in vacuum. There was the Republican Party that refused to support anything, any and every thing, that President Obama proposed, even when they were the ones demanding action. Witness Donald Trump's contradictory stances on Syria. There is the American public, tired of war and its casualties and convinced more Americans will die in the sand (not an unfounded fear) as involvement grows, while simultaneously ignoring 230 years of American history and assiduously avoiding military duty themselves.
Military experience by itself does not confer any special knowledge in the initiation and conduct of conflict. Case in point: George W. Bush. But there is military experience as lived by Eisenhower, John Kennedy, George H. W. Bush and then there is military experience as lived by Dubya. Obama is without either, and this is to his, and our, and most of all the citizens of Syria's detriment.
What a heartbreaking article. But can the United States really change things in Syria?
A recent article described Syria now as a proxy war between the United States and Russia, with no hope of a peaceful outcome any time soon. We must nonetheless do our best to reduce the violence without risking our young men and women with a ground force.
A President Hillary Clinton may take a more aggressive approach. This is worrisome because there is no guarantee she won't be putting the U.S. deeper into another Middle East quagmire.
Putin and especially Assad are profoundly evil men. Where is the United Nations? Where are our M.E. allies? How, 35 years after the end of the Cold War, did we get to this point, with a newly powerful and dangerous Russia?
The United States, the most powerful nation on earth, nonetheless cannot create peace by itself. (Of course we are guilty of contributing to - or causing - the explosion of terrorism and violence in the Middle East when Bush decided to invade Iraq.)
A recent article described Syria now as a proxy war between the United States and Russia, with no hope of a peaceful outcome any time soon. We must nonetheless do our best to reduce the violence without risking our young men and women with a ground force.
A President Hillary Clinton may take a more aggressive approach. This is worrisome because there is no guarantee she won't be putting the U.S. deeper into another Middle East quagmire.
Putin and especially Assad are profoundly evil men. Where is the United Nations? Where are our M.E. allies? How, 35 years after the end of the Cold War, did we get to this point, with a newly powerful and dangerous Russia?
The United States, the most powerful nation on earth, nonetheless cannot create peace by itself. (Of course we are guilty of contributing to - or causing - the explosion of terrorism and violence in the Middle East when Bush decided to invade Iraq.)
1
The Republican propensity to see "violent action against" those who oppose them (G.W. Bush, Cheney etc all.) kicked over the initial domino and everything in the Middle East today is the consequence of that tendency. Their attitude is oppositional in all things, insistence on their holding the only true perspective and the only Truth. It is also the case that sometimes doing the minimum and working through and with others is slow and painful to see when innocents are at risk, but in the long run violent opposition compounds the dangers not only to the innocent but also to the future.
Next time Mr. Kristof and others write their critical columns I'd really appreciate a paragraph or two that contained alternative or better ways to approach intractable problems. When complaints and criticism are all you offer, you simply add to the burden.
Next time Mr. Kristof and others write their critical columns I'd really appreciate a paragraph or two that contained alternative or better ways to approach intractable problems. When complaints and criticism are all you offer, you simply add to the burden.
2
As a person who came to the USA as a refugee immediately after World War II, I follow with great concern the plight of Syria and its citizens.
It is easy to advocate intervention.
But what is your strategy for the Middle East, for Syria, and for an atavistic Russia?
Unless you can propose a strategy, intervention is likely only to be an escalation.
The world is hardly perfect, the USA is not God, and military weapons are not precise with more often than not unforeseen consequences. The most important thing is not to do stupid things. President Obama was elected to get us out of Iraq and end the chaos we began.
He is still fulfilling his campaign promise. We should give him credit for that.
That does not mean we should not intervene, but we have to do so with a full understanding of our own moral, intellectual, and strategic limitations.
We also must take a deep breath, pray to the All Mighty, and cry if we intervene.
It is easy to advocate intervention.
But what is your strategy for the Middle East, for Syria, and for an atavistic Russia?
Unless you can propose a strategy, intervention is likely only to be an escalation.
The world is hardly perfect, the USA is not God, and military weapons are not precise with more often than not unforeseen consequences. The most important thing is not to do stupid things. President Obama was elected to get us out of Iraq and end the chaos we began.
He is still fulfilling his campaign promise. We should give him credit for that.
That does not mean we should not intervene, but we have to do so with a full understanding of our own moral, intellectual, and strategic limitations.
We also must take a deep breath, pray to the All Mighty, and cry if we intervene.
1
Nicolas, I heartily agree. Addressing the very complicated problems in Syria is no easy task. But I can't help thinking that our consistent retreat from 'red lines' and indecisive policies and actions have contributed to the problem. Russia's unchallenged and opportunistic entry with war planes and troops should have been forcefully rebuffed. Russia has conned us again and again about their real intentions. We seriously need to grow up and start managing this affair to coincide with long-term American and regional interests. The human costs of failure are unacceptable.
The blots on Obama's presidency - let's see - where to begin?
We're still in Afghanistan,
Using the justice department to step UP deportations and the silencing of leakers, instead of prosecuting a single Wall Street big shot for their crime of the century, or Citibank for drug money laundering, etc.,
Knowingly sending juveniles with gang-related death and prostitution sentences back to their homes to be raped, tortured and killed,
Permitting drilling in the Arctic, failing to address methane leakage, and failing to enlighten the ignorant and rally the American people to reduce our individual carbon footprints.
I could go on, but in general promising hope and change and delivering the same old completely corrupt and massively inefficient political/national security system he came in with, only even worse.
Funny that the legacy of the first black president will be how quickly he became invisible.
We're still in Afghanistan,
Using the justice department to step UP deportations and the silencing of leakers, instead of prosecuting a single Wall Street big shot for their crime of the century, or Citibank for drug money laundering, etc.,
Knowingly sending juveniles with gang-related death and prostitution sentences back to their homes to be raped, tortured and killed,
Permitting drilling in the Arctic, failing to address methane leakage, and failing to enlighten the ignorant and rally the American people to reduce our individual carbon footprints.
I could go on, but in general promising hope and change and delivering the same old completely corrupt and massively inefficient political/national security system he came in with, only even worse.
Funny that the legacy of the first black president will be how quickly he became invisible.
It seems to me that Bana's mother is very thoughtful. There is absolutely nothing in the narrative which a young woman would ever have to look back on with shame, in my opinion. If it becomes too painful to reflect on the horrors of war, or she just doesn't want to do this anymore, that would be more than understandable, but as long as this helps Bana know that people care, I think it's a good thing. My two cents only.
What I see is a little girl who already has a strong sense of justice. Bana asks that we would pray for other cities under siege, because that is only "fair." She finds humor in the mundane. Who needs an alarm clock when there are bombs to awaken one in the morning? As the big sister, she wants to set a good example for her brothers, but it's hard.
It must be horrible to have people questioning the authenticity of their story, or even making up similar-sounding accounts to capitalize on suffering. I'm so sorry that they've experienced that, yet I hope that this also helps them to feel less alone. I don't know much about Syria, but I trust the people who are telling us that it's not all-or-nothing.
Would it be more noble to die (may Heaven forbid!) in a pretty, dignified silence? Bana has every right to fight for her life. May God bless her and her family.
What I see is a little girl who already has a strong sense of justice. Bana asks that we would pray for other cities under siege, because that is only "fair." She finds humor in the mundane. Who needs an alarm clock when there are bombs to awaken one in the morning? As the big sister, she wants to set a good example for her brothers, but it's hard.
It must be horrible to have people questioning the authenticity of their story, or even making up similar-sounding accounts to capitalize on suffering. I'm so sorry that they've experienced that, yet I hope that this also helps them to feel less alone. I don't know much about Syria, but I trust the people who are telling us that it's not all-or-nothing.
Would it be more noble to die (may Heaven forbid!) in a pretty, dignified silence? Bana has every right to fight for her life. May God bless her and her family.
I continue to be perplexed at the press coverage of the many many atrocities that are happening in this world. Perhaps the Obama administration could have helped the situation in Syria in some way. You seem to have forgotten the GOP, who have blocked much of what the President has sought to achieve. AND I'm still not seeing the coverage that the CARNAGE wreaked by American intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan on their respective civilian populations. What the media chooses to cover and the slant they put on it boggles the mind.
1
Looks like Nicholas Kristof's "war on Syria" NYT propaganda is getting more desperate. It's especially obvious because Mr. Kristof never presents the side of the majority of Syrians who democratically and overwhelmingly elected President Assad and whom have fled to Syrian government controlled areas in Syria for protection against the terrorists ISIS and Nusra Front (for example, fleeing from E. Aleppo to West Aleppo).
For real on-the-ground reporting from Syria one must go to independent reporters such as Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett, or the U.S. Peace Council Delegation to Syria, or Virginia State Senator Richard Black (all can be found on youtube).
The sovereign government of Syria is defending itself against the invasion of 360,000 terrorist mercenaries trained, armed, supplied, and paid for by US-led NATO, the GCC, and Israel. These terrorist invaders hail from 83 different countries.
Syria has the legal right to defend herself against this foreign-backed terrorist invasion. If the U.S. would only allow our military forces (who are in sovereign Syria illegally, unlike Russia) to destroy ISIS and the Nusra Front, the suffering in Syria would end in a matter of months. However, Ash Carter, for some unknown reason, has been protecting the Nusra Front terrorist organization and is not allowing our military to work with Russia and take out ISIS.
If the U.S. partnered with Russia, we could solve the terrorist nightmare in Syria quickly (and improve peace inthe world).
For real on-the-ground reporting from Syria one must go to independent reporters such as Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett, or the U.S. Peace Council Delegation to Syria, or Virginia State Senator Richard Black (all can be found on youtube).
The sovereign government of Syria is defending itself against the invasion of 360,000 terrorist mercenaries trained, armed, supplied, and paid for by US-led NATO, the GCC, and Israel. These terrorist invaders hail from 83 different countries.
Syria has the legal right to defend herself against this foreign-backed terrorist invasion. If the U.S. would only allow our military forces (who are in sovereign Syria illegally, unlike Russia) to destroy ISIS and the Nusra Front, the suffering in Syria would end in a matter of months. However, Ash Carter, for some unknown reason, has been protecting the Nusra Front terrorist organization and is not allowing our military to work with Russia and take out ISIS.
If the U.S. partnered with Russia, we could solve the terrorist nightmare in Syria quickly (and improve peace inthe world).
5
really shameful. the president, who i like really otherwise, displays an irreconcilable stubbornness on this issue. Of late, the news coming out of the White House is simply that they were conned, first by the Russians, who didn't promise what they said they would (surprise), and then the Israelis, who also broke a promise (surprise). The latter presented in a Kafkaesk revelation that the Israeli's are not serious about a 2 state solution - another example where Mr. Obama just walked away without explanation. What goes on in Mr. Obama's mind as he ponders his legacy is beyond me. Any number of national park designations will not erase this blot from his record.
1
I believe President Obama is to be commended for firmly keeping the United States out of this conflict. Obama was elected to be the President of the US -- not the world's police officer. By the way - there are many sad, frightened young girls right here in America that Mr. Kristoff (and his legion of admirers) can effectively help have better lives.
7
Re: "Obama’s paralysis has been linked to the loss of perhaps half a million lives in Syria, the rise of extremist groups like the Islamic State, genocide against the Yazidi and Christians, the worst refugee crisis in more than 60 years and the rise of ultranationalist groups in Europe."
Is Obama's paralysis linked to Russia's invasion of the Ukraine or China's oppression of Uighurs and Tibetans? Is it linked to the atrocities perpetrated by Saudi and Iranian proxies throughout the Mideast and especially in Yemen, or by the Lord's Resistance Army and Boko Harum in Africa? What about the persecution of Muslims in Myanmar?
There's another way to look at Obama's paralysis: that it takes tremendous character and dedication to his responsibility for the well-being of our military (not to mention our treasury) to resist pulling out the "military toolbox" in Syria in the face of withering criticism from political friend and foe alike.
Is Obama's paralysis linked to Russia's invasion of the Ukraine or China's oppression of Uighurs and Tibetans? Is it linked to the atrocities perpetrated by Saudi and Iranian proxies throughout the Mideast and especially in Yemen, or by the Lord's Resistance Army and Boko Harum in Africa? What about the persecution of Muslims in Myanmar?
There's another way to look at Obama's paralysis: that it takes tremendous character and dedication to his responsibility for the well-being of our military (not to mention our treasury) to resist pulling out the "military toolbox" in Syria in the face of withering criticism from political friend and foe alike.
5
Over 36,000 Americans were killed in the Korean War. 58,000 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War. Over 6,000 Americans were killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Interventionists like Mr. Kristof will change their position when America intervenes in a foreign war and it does not achieve the intended rescue of people and democracy. They will say; "YOU did it wrong." The emphasis on YOU.
1
Under current circumstances, Obama's cowed position may finally change when no one is alive anymore, to help bury the dead. This idea is half in jest of course, given the huge risks of poorly thought out (and carried out) adventures. Trouble is, inaction while Assad (with aggressive Russian support) tramples and destroys his own people) enjoys immunity of his disgraceful actions, is an insult we are forced to swallow. Nov. 8 elections for Hillary to dictate a new policy to restrain Assad, and Putin, must reveal a viable alternative to stop the mayhem. This is our world and we all are (or should be) together in trying to make things better; and nothing that occurs elsewhere ought to be strange to us, as its spattering touches us all too close for comfort. Unless we stopped caring, indifferent to our neighbors' plight, complacent in our cocoon of irrelevancy.
The comments to this article are, on the whole, garbage. But comments don't matter and Op-Eds don't matter. Policies matter. Action matters. And the reality is that this president feels very much like the commenters do: that the risks of further involvement outweigh the potential benefits.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/aleppo-is-obamas-sarajevo-1475709247
To flip a contentious Michelle Obama pronouncement on its head, For the first time in my adult life, I'm ashamed of my country.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/aleppo-is-obamas-sarajevo-1475709247
To flip a contentious Michelle Obama pronouncement on its head, For the first time in my adult life, I'm ashamed of my country.
I love your phrasing - "If we don't act". There is no "we" in your sentence Mr. Kristof. It will not be you or yours breathing poison gas, have limbs blown off or getting killed. It's always someone else who has to go and suffer and die. How about you go and spend some time with families who lost loved ones in Iraq. Ask them if it was worth it. And, as a taxpayer who is on the hook for the last two debacles, I can tell you, no, it was not worth it. This is not an American problem.
13
Mr. Kristof has written a column that laments that we are doing nothing about Syria, but which doesn't advocate for anything more than cratering runways to stop one particular aspect of the atrocities.
What used to be done in cases like this was called imperialism. Some European power, or maybe two together, would have cobbled together a military task force, sent it there, and done what was necessary to stop it. We effectively ended that practice by putting the kibosh on Britain, France, and Israel in 1956 when they were going to seize the Suez Canal.
The irony of this column, if I'm guessing correctly, is that Mr. Kristof would have frowned on good old-fashioned imperialist military expeditions. And in this column, while he wants us to do something, he dithers to the point of saying that we mustn't send ground troops.
The Middle East is a very dangerous place, and has been for at least 2,000 years. The real lesson here is that we should have stayed out of it.
I will hope that in Mr. Kristof's next column about Syria he will tell us what he would do were he in the White House.
As for Bill Clinton, his failure to stop the Rwanda genocide was not a "mistake". It was a deliberate, and prolonged, policy decision that included forbidding members of his administration from using the term "genocide". The fear at the time was that if it was recognized as genocide, pubic opinion would force him to do something. That's his legacy.
What used to be done in cases like this was called imperialism. Some European power, or maybe two together, would have cobbled together a military task force, sent it there, and done what was necessary to stop it. We effectively ended that practice by putting the kibosh on Britain, France, and Israel in 1956 when they were going to seize the Suez Canal.
The irony of this column, if I'm guessing correctly, is that Mr. Kristof would have frowned on good old-fashioned imperialist military expeditions. And in this column, while he wants us to do something, he dithers to the point of saying that we mustn't send ground troops.
The Middle East is a very dangerous place, and has been for at least 2,000 years. The real lesson here is that we should have stayed out of it.
I will hope that in Mr. Kristof's next column about Syria he will tell us what he would do were he in the White House.
As for Bill Clinton, his failure to stop the Rwanda genocide was not a "mistake". It was a deliberate, and prolonged, policy decision that included forbidding members of his administration from using the term "genocide". The fear at the time was that if it was recognized as genocide, pubic opinion would force him to do something. That's his legacy.
Some things the USA cannot fix. Syria is one of them. It is one more nexus of religious wars; there is no outside solution to fanaticism and vendetta. Whatever brings a cessation of hostility, it will be internally generated by exhaustion. Whatever form of rule results, it probably will be some amalgam of theocracies hostile to democracy. No military action can lead to an equilibrium the USA wants.
If the outside parties - Iran, Russia, USA, Saudi Arabia, who else? - stopped arming the factions and goading them on as proxies, they would settle sooner. Perhaps the USA can help with foreign disengagement? Perhaps the USA can help develop refugee solutions? Perhaps the USA can help Libya, Lebanon, Morocco, Algeria - some other countries - to become an inspiring example? Do something other than being just another futile combatant in internecine warfare?
If the outside parties - Iran, Russia, USA, Saudi Arabia, who else? - stopped arming the factions and goading them on as proxies, they would settle sooner. Perhaps the USA can help with foreign disengagement? Perhaps the USA can help develop refugee solutions? Perhaps the USA can help Libya, Lebanon, Morocco, Algeria - some other countries - to become an inspiring example? Do something other than being just another futile combatant in internecine warfare?
1
This is horrific, what can the the West do....of course not send in ground troops.
Of course.
400 million Europeans can't be wrong.
Of course.
400 million Europeans can't be wrong.
The best policy towards Syria is ti seal off that country from the rest of the world and let them fight until they get tired of it.
There is no Arab or Muslim country on earth that has contributed anything to the world's well being in over a thousand years.
Hopefully when they are done slaughtering each other they will do as the European Christians finally did and stop.
There is no Arab or Muslim country on earth that has contributed anything to the world's well being in over a thousand years.
Hopefully when they are done slaughtering each other they will do as the European Christians finally did and stop.
1
First of all this is not an African tribe going on a 3 week killing spree with machetes. As you've pointed out, we have jet fighters, barrel bombs, chemical weapons, surface to air missles, etc. We also have Russians. We also have them in a slightly different neighborhood than Rawanda. The huge differences just keep coming. Intervention in the Middle East is slightly different from intervention in Africa (or in a small surrounded European region for that matter).
Cratering runways? That's the big humanitarian plan. Our military can repair a cratered runway in less that a day. Do you think the Russians are so much less efficient than us that we should have done this "years ago" and it would have or would be now making a difference.
And last I checked many European nations have much better militaries than Assad. Turkey has a much better military than Assad. Both Europe and Turkey have MUCH more skin in this disaster but I see nothing coming from these countries of meaning to stop the killing (obviously they are doing a much better job than we are of taking in the refugees who've been displaced by Assad and the world's inaction).
There is one lesson Mr. Kristof that the President seems to have learned but you have not: you can't save people who in the end don't want to be saved by the likes of you. That is true everywhere but most true, as we have repeatedly seen, in the Middle East.
Cratering runways? That's the big humanitarian plan. Our military can repair a cratered runway in less that a day. Do you think the Russians are so much less efficient than us that we should have done this "years ago" and it would have or would be now making a difference.
And last I checked many European nations have much better militaries than Assad. Turkey has a much better military than Assad. Both Europe and Turkey have MUCH more skin in this disaster but I see nothing coming from these countries of meaning to stop the killing (obviously they are doing a much better job than we are of taking in the refugees who've been displaced by Assad and the world's inaction).
There is one lesson Mr. Kristof that the President seems to have learned but you have not: you can't save people who in the end don't want to be saved by the likes of you. That is true everywhere but most true, as we have repeatedly seen, in the Middle East.
5
If anyone thinks, even for one second, that Syria is the only hellhole in the world today, think again.
There are hellish conditions in parts of Africa, South America, and North Korea, just to name a few.
If we have a moral obligation to help those in Syria, then we have the same obligation to help in every other place in the world where people are being maimed and killed by hostile forces.
Or, are Syrian lives worth more than others?
There are hellish conditions in parts of Africa, South America, and North Korea, just to name a few.
If we have a moral obligation to help those in Syria, then we have the same obligation to help in every other place in the world where people are being maimed and killed by hostile forces.
Or, are Syrian lives worth more than others?
2
All the pathos Nicholas is heartbreaking, but the fundamental problems are 1) Every American involvement in the Middle East has lead to unforseen negative consequences, which wind up costing American lives and treasure. 2) As horrific as he human tragedy is, it's not a core National Security Issue. 3) This idea that military intervention by the U.S. will always be the panacea is proven nonsense.4) We are not the world's conscience, other nations have to bear the burden, which we have too often shouldered alone.5) I don't want my children risking their lives for some nebulous humanitarian cause in Syria, do you?
3
If you take a snapshot of Syria today the evidence is irrefutable that the Assad government and his Russian allies are committing war crimes. Intentional bombing a civilian population is a clear violation of the Geneva Convention.
But if you broaden the lens you get a different picture. This new perspective doesn't absolve Assad or Russia of culpability. But it does give them a list of new co-defendants which includes our very own government.
Aiding and abetting human rights violations is a crime under international law. Charles Taylor, former strongman in Liberia sits in jail today for precisely this crime.
So add to your list of human rights violators the Saudi government for aiding and abetting and our own government as well. The US began its regime change efforts against Syria in 2009. The last straw for us wasn't human rights violations by Assad, not then or now. It was his refusal to allow a gas pipeline from the Gulf States to run through Syria and bypass Russian fields.
So todays war has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with banks, oil, gas for Europe and huge sums of cash. ISIS upset those plans by moving from Iraq into Syria and the Saudi and American proxies turned out to be Islamic extremists in their own right. But the game plan is the same and Obama cares no more about that little girl you write about than Bush did about the millions like her in Iraq. The only answer is peace and that's not on anyones agenda, including our own government.
But if you broaden the lens you get a different picture. This new perspective doesn't absolve Assad or Russia of culpability. But it does give them a list of new co-defendants which includes our very own government.
Aiding and abetting human rights violations is a crime under international law. Charles Taylor, former strongman in Liberia sits in jail today for precisely this crime.
So add to your list of human rights violators the Saudi government for aiding and abetting and our own government as well. The US began its regime change efforts against Syria in 2009. The last straw for us wasn't human rights violations by Assad, not then or now. It was his refusal to allow a gas pipeline from the Gulf States to run through Syria and bypass Russian fields.
So todays war has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with banks, oil, gas for Europe and huge sums of cash. ISIS upset those plans by moving from Iraq into Syria and the Saudi and American proxies turned out to be Islamic extremists in their own right. But the game plan is the same and Obama cares no more about that little girl you write about than Bush did about the millions like her in Iraq. The only answer is peace and that's not on anyones agenda, including our own government.
29
Excellent comment! There is someone on whose agenda "peace" reigns supreme. And that is the Green Party Presidential candidate, Jill Stein. "We will work to end all wars and terrorism--by establishing a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law & human rights -- cut funding & supplying arms to all sides & put an end to drone killings. We will bring troops home from 700+ military bases abroad and use savings to invest in domestic infrastructure..."
Back in 2008, running in the Democratic primary, it was Congressman Dennis Kucinich who was the peace candidate.. After him it was Bernie Sanders. But the American people have to make their voices heard, if we want peace. We most vote for a peace candidate, because there is no time to waste. We are on a collision course with a nuclear meltdown that will dwarf anything we have seen so far.
Back in 2008, running in the Democratic primary, it was Congressman Dennis Kucinich who was the peace candidate.. After him it was Bernie Sanders. But the American people have to make their voices heard, if we want peace. We most vote for a peace candidate, because there is no time to waste. We are on a collision course with a nuclear meltdown that will dwarf anything we have seen so far.
1
Wrong, Mr. Kristof. You're flat out wrong. Syria's civil war is a blot on the legacy of Assad, and the 'leaders' of various factions involved in the fight - including Daesh and the various nameless, interchangeable rebel groups. It may perhaps be a blot on the already sorry legacies of Putin and Erdogan too. But it is in no way a blot on America - or on Obama's legacy. It's a fallacy - and a bloody costly one at that - to think that America can somehow solve the world's intractable problems, intervene in every conflict that creates a humanitarian disaster or be the world's policeman. What is happening in Syria is indeed terrible. It is certainly causing a humanitarian disaster not only in Syria and its neighbors, but also across Europe. But it is something for the warring parties to resolve, not us, because solving Syria's civil war is not worth the life of one single American soldier, sailor, marine or airman/woman. If you disagree, you are free to go join the fight yourself and see what you can do - but quit blaming our government and president for exercising caution and keeping our military out of that godforsaken deadly swamp.
6
I share your outrage and sympathy for the Syrians suffering in Aleppo and elsewhere in the county. But the same argument could have been and was made when Saddam Hussein was terrifying his citizens, butchering thousands, causing some 500,000 deaths (50% civilian) to fight a senseless war with Iran, and invading Kuwait. We eventually intervened twice. The first time was a patch. The second a disaster. Until the world truly allows an international body like the UN to have a real police force with big teeth, sadly the atrocities associated with civil wars like this one will continue.
1
Yes, it is extremely painful to view the atrocities perpetrated by the Syrian government on it's people. Especially painful is to view the bodies of children being pulled from their collapsed homes.
Today's Washington Post featured an article of a Marine corp Sgt.,his long fight back after he lost both arms at the elbow and his legs at about the knee's after he stepped on a land mine in Afghanistan. That too was a painful reminder of our involvement in wars where lack of sound thoughtful policy led this nation into situation thats resulted in tragic consequences.
We suffered when the domino effect theory was perpetrated to involve us into the Vietnam conflict. Discounting the financial cost and the lives of innocent Vietnam people, recall how many of our young military men came home in body bags, and others suffered who suffered wounds, that many are still dealing with today. Now Vietnam today is a destination point for many who seek a new vacation country to visit. Figure that one out.
Recall the Weapons of Mass Destruction theory? Now that one was for the books. No need to review the results of that war. We still have criminals who perpetrated that war walking freely in this country.
Yes a child will die in the Syrian conflict, but how many United States soldiers will die or sustain injury to save that child? If you criticize Obama failure for involvement, how about criticism of NATO allies failure to enter this conflict.
Today's Washington Post featured an article of a Marine corp Sgt.,his long fight back after he lost both arms at the elbow and his legs at about the knee's after he stepped on a land mine in Afghanistan. That too was a painful reminder of our involvement in wars where lack of sound thoughtful policy led this nation into situation thats resulted in tragic consequences.
We suffered when the domino effect theory was perpetrated to involve us into the Vietnam conflict. Discounting the financial cost and the lives of innocent Vietnam people, recall how many of our young military men came home in body bags, and others suffered who suffered wounds, that many are still dealing with today. Now Vietnam today is a destination point for many who seek a new vacation country to visit. Figure that one out.
Recall the Weapons of Mass Destruction theory? Now that one was for the books. No need to review the results of that war. We still have criminals who perpetrated that war walking freely in this country.
Yes a child will die in the Syrian conflict, but how many United States soldiers will die or sustain injury to save that child? If you criticize Obama failure for involvement, how about criticism of NATO allies failure to enter this conflict.
3
Not a fan of Kristof but here is how it this is seen outside the US
From The Economist, the world's leading weekly, this week:
"The agony of Syria is the biggest moral stain on Barack Obama’s presidency. And the chaos rippling from Syria—where many now turn to al-Qaeda, not the West, for salvation—is his greatest geopolitical failure."
"The failure to strike Mr Assad’s regime after he crossed the “red line” on the use of chemical weapons damaged American credibility, as many around Mr Obama admit. Now it is Russia that sets the rules of the game"
Mr. Obama and yes, the US, DOES share responsibility for what is happening.
The US's President cave in opened the door to unrestrained slaughter.
All his cool and detached rhetoric will not change the verdict of history
From The Economist, the world's leading weekly, this week:
"The agony of Syria is the biggest moral stain on Barack Obama’s presidency. And the chaos rippling from Syria—where many now turn to al-Qaeda, not the West, for salvation—is his greatest geopolitical failure."
"The failure to strike Mr Assad’s regime after he crossed the “red line” on the use of chemical weapons damaged American credibility, as many around Mr Obama admit. Now it is Russia that sets the rules of the game"
Mr. Obama and yes, the US, DOES share responsibility for what is happening.
The US's President cave in opened the door to unrestrained slaughter.
All his cool and detached rhetoric will not change the verdict of history
1
To Woof and to Mr Kristoff: what precisely, would you do . . . after the US military has cratered the runways -- a simple task, no doubt, with no opposition from Assad or the Russians -- and Assad and the Russians retaliate? In the short term, military action looks enticing, but in the long term it leads only to more military action. Peace NOW.
2
Mr. Kristof - The only correct thing in your entire column is the tragedy of the consequences of war on Bana and her family. Everything else you state is completely wrong-headed.
5
Even a slight hint of US leadership would have gone a long way to thwart the viciousness of this incredible civil war. Unfortunately the "lack of conviction for anything but avoidance of conflict and oratory explanations" dye was cast, and subsequently carried out in every case by Obama. Global leadership requires leverage and even the most liberal and progressive minds will admit this unless completely dense. The lack of US Leadership in the Syrian quagmire is not simply an isolated phenomenon or the lack of a direct strategy of intervention. It is the result of a culmination of weak US leadership and presidential lip-service over a 8 year span of time. The aspirations of a former community organizer are not the correct recipe for a successful world power leader (Obama) nor will community organization theory work on a global level. It is sheer folly to imagine that creating a vacuum in global power and leadership by repeated cowardly and passive actions will not invite less sophisticated but semi-powerful players to act out. This is Obama's legacy- the increased conflict of culture wars which he has ushered in and supported by his failure to "prefer any culture over another" (other than a preference for "black American culture in the US). Leaders are effective not only by their "objectivity" but by their "subjectivity".
3
Although I agree that the US could have done more where are the European countries and NATO in all this hand wringing over Syria? The European governments have failed miserably in not assuming some responsibility for intervening in Syria since Syria is on their back step. Much of the humanitarian crisis that resulted in large number of refugees fleeing to Europe could have been mostly avoided with early intervention by NATO. It is unfair to place all of the responsibility on the Obama administration without also calling out Europe and their inaction on this crisis. I realize that Europe has been good at accepting refugees but these refugees would prefer to be in their home state and not fleeing and putting the lives at risk to flee the Syrian civil war.
4
Kristof speaks for the Ages. In 5 years, health care cost inflation will render Obamacare mostly forgotten, but 500 years from now Obama will still be remembered for letting the Middle East crumble and how passivity can be even more dangerous than aggression.
6
Reducing the rate of uninsured Americans to less than 10%, increasing the number of Americans with health care insurance by 20 million - both of these will be seen as signal achievements in 5, 10 or 15 years. The ACA needs a bit of tweaking, as do all major laws affecting our every day lives, nothing more.
And keeping the country from becoming embroiled in the Syrian civil war will also be something for us to be grateful for in the years to come.
And keeping the country from becoming embroiled in the Syrian civil war will also be something for us to be grateful for in the years to come.
3
"Getting embroiled" in wars is outdated thinking. Obama himself proved that in Libya where he killed Qaddafi, saved tens to hundreds of thousands of lives, at zero cost to America in lives or dollars.
The newly-insured under Obama are often receiving care that is only marginally better than going to the emergency room. The price we paid for these 20 million with this half-measure of a law is the forfeiture of all political capital so there will never be a way to expand health care to the 30 million that don't have it, or to lower the outrageous costs for the 300 million that do have it. That is the legacy that will stick.
The newly-insured under Obama are often receiving care that is only marginally better than going to the emergency room. The price we paid for these 20 million with this half-measure of a law is the forfeiture of all political capital so there will never be a way to expand health care to the 30 million that don't have it, or to lower the outrageous costs for the 300 million that do have it. That is the legacy that will stick.
1
Would anyone, anyone explain just why America is guilty of "letting the Middle East crumble?" Huge (my new favorite word) powers with huge armies are in the Middle East and should be able to find solutions. Why is America, not a Muslim country, supposed to sort this out from the other side of the globe? Most Americans would guess that Sunni and Shia are sushi dishes but insanely send their kids over there to be killed or permanently maimed.
Conservatives like show and tell. They show thoughts and tell us that a nebulous, changing thing they call conservatism can rationalize and has rationalized all sorts of destruction. Conservatives tell they support our troops. Our troops happen to be a giant font of liberalism, wanting our boys to do fantastic things. That should sound familiar to every conscious individual. It would be one thing if those things benefited. Lately they have not benefited. When they have benefited, the cost is permanent if the benefit is not. I ask, why are veterans so fond of war? Was it something they achieved in war? Benefits? We could use frank answers surpassing supporting troops. I only seem to have changed the subject from conservatives, same the world over, to veterans.
I completely agree that sending our young men and women into war is to be avoided. However we must take into account the consequences of non- involvement. No matter how well intellectualism flourishes here in the US and Europe there are places and forces that don't consider it at all. For these players we must demonstrate strength and capability.
Russia was on the losing side in the Spanish Civil War that led to Franco's dictatorship. I don't think that Putin wants to see this outcome again. He already must still seething over the withdrawal of Russian forces from Afghanistan as a result of our aid to those fighting those forces.
It is truly horrifying to contemplate the thousands that have died in Syria these past few years. However, I believe there is more to President Obama's so-called reluctance to do more to oust Assad. Obama has more information than we do and I trust his judgement. There are times when options are limited.
It is truly horrifying to contemplate the thousands that have died in Syria these past few years. However, I believe there is more to President Obama's so-called reluctance to do more to oust Assad. Obama has more information than we do and I trust his judgement. There are times when options are limited.
3
A conservative estimate is 470,000 lives lost. But don't worry. Some guy in the NFL is not honoring the national anthem and a celebrity being robbed at gun point are more important to cover. Finally, Obama's measured reaction to all this is admirable. He learned the lesson from 2001 and 2003.
2
The situation in Syria cannot be fixed by American intervention alone and Obama knows that. Kristoff acknowledges that the US has intervened, but should do more. And to what end?
My heart sincerely goes out to Bana, her mother, and all of the other innocent victims in Syria. But my heart also wrenches for the thousands of Africans, dozens of which have died over the past few days trying to get to Italy on small boats. I also feel sorry for the failures of our military in Iraq and Afghanistan. But then again, I also feel bad for the people in Flint, Michigan living without clean, lead free water for well over a year, not to mention the long term damage inflicted on the kids. And lets not forget the poor innocent people in Chicago who are plagued by gun violence. Or all the kids being orphaned in our country because their parents are overdosing on heroin.
As a nation we have to decide do we want to and can we realistically be the worlds police. Especially at a time when our nation is confronting so many internal conflicts and problems. I don't blame Obama for not wanting to go all in in Syria. Given the Russian's stake in this, a heavier hand could very well lead to all out war. And that benefits no one, except for weapons manufacturers. History has shown that American intervention can do more harm then good.
My heart sincerely goes out to Bana, her mother, and all of the other innocent victims in Syria. But my heart also wrenches for the thousands of Africans, dozens of which have died over the past few days trying to get to Italy on small boats. I also feel sorry for the failures of our military in Iraq and Afghanistan. But then again, I also feel bad for the people in Flint, Michigan living without clean, lead free water for well over a year, not to mention the long term damage inflicted on the kids. And lets not forget the poor innocent people in Chicago who are plagued by gun violence. Or all the kids being orphaned in our country because their parents are overdosing on heroin.
As a nation we have to decide do we want to and can we realistically be the worlds police. Especially at a time when our nation is confronting so many internal conflicts and problems. I don't blame Obama for not wanting to go all in in Syria. Given the Russian's stake in this, a heavier hand could very well lead to all out war. And that benefits no one, except for weapons manufacturers. History has shown that American intervention can do more harm then good.
10
Let us avoid a shooting war but try to punish the murderers. The Soviet Union collapsed because a middling economy put most of its rubles into guns, with little left over for butter. Something similar seems to be happening now. Russia gets most of its revenue by exporting oil/gas into Europe. Any European country that imports anything from Russia should be informed that it is complicit in the murder of Syrian babies by Russian barrel bombs, and that we will stop trading with the murderers inside or outside of Russia.
1
Escalating the conflict to the brink of a superpower war is the way to save the Banas of Aleppo and of Syria? Assad and Putin will yield to some runway cratering? There are good guys waiting for a break in the violence so they can rush in and restore peace and safety to Syria? We can--from the other side of the world--control by force what happens on the ground in Aleppo?
There is just no good evidence that this is possible. The evidence runs heavily the other way. There is no agreement, among the best informed, about what action would be most effective because--given the conditions--there is no way of knowing. We can support safe zones in whatever way possible and help to get people out. One thing we can certainly do to help is to shelter the refugees who manage to escape. I understand Kristof's feelings. But I admire Obama's long-term considerations and perseverance here. He has a steady grasp of the realities and he stays grounded in them. He has a long-term strategy and he keeps to it. He uses power quickly and effectively when an opportunity opens: Osama Bin Laden, the Yazidis. He doesn't bluster into quicksand.
There is just no good evidence that this is possible. The evidence runs heavily the other way. There is no agreement, among the best informed, about what action would be most effective because--given the conditions--there is no way of knowing. We can support safe zones in whatever way possible and help to get people out. One thing we can certainly do to help is to shelter the refugees who manage to escape. I understand Kristof's feelings. But I admire Obama's long-term considerations and perseverance here. He has a steady grasp of the realities and he stays grounded in them. He has a long-term strategy and he keeps to it. He uses power quickly and effectively when an opportunity opens: Osama Bin Laden, the Yazidis. He doesn't bluster into quicksand.
10
Mr. Kristof, I appreciate your humanitarian views, but in the case of Syria, I think you have got it wrong. On balance your suggestions are short sighted and potentially point to failure.
Suggesting that the Syrian disaster is a "Blot on Obama's Legacy" is wrong and unfair.
Suggesting that the Syrian disaster is a "Blot on Obama's Legacy" is wrong and unfair.
13
I can understand Obama's "paralysis" as you call it. Do we want Americans coming home in body bags from Syria. Ultimately, THAT is the major question. There is no easy solution to the Bush created black hole in that part of the world.
1
President Obama's failure to intervene decisively in Syria did not cause the rise of ISIS but the President certainly can be held to account for the current carnage in and around Aleppo. Apostles of peace are now calling for forceful means to blunt the lethal rampage of mass murdering, mutually-reinforcing, highly weaponized cowards having nary a concern for human life.
Such figures have appeared before in history, to the victimization of tens of millions of innocents. We now understand the human consequences. It is time to act to spare the needless slaughter we know will otherwise come. Never mind the presidential legacy.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Such figures have appeared before in history, to the victimization of tens of millions of innocents. We now understand the human consequences. It is time to act to spare the needless slaughter we know will otherwise come. Never mind the presidential legacy.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
2
Syrian atrocities are but one prescient hole in the Obama legacy. It serves as an ending exclamation point in a failed foreign policy and complete moral bankruptcy directed by this U.S. President. Without election fodder and a constituent base of voters of Syrian descent, is there really surprise in the inactions of this President? This is a person who has decided on a planned drone mayhem throughout the world as his legacy of civilian death and destruction. This is but a feckless leader able to draw red lines that are repeatedly crossed and met only with vacillation and retreat.
Aleppo is an international disgrace and presents an opportunity to demonstrate compassion and true leadership. Instead, we witness a President whose sole time in office is to read a prepared script and then disappear when responsibility beckons, constantly insulated by a fawning press who sole focus is race relations and climate change; nothing in the immediate demanding decisiveness and fortitude.
Aleppo is an international disgrace and presents an opportunity to demonstrate compassion and true leadership. Instead, we witness a President whose sole time in office is to read a prepared script and then disappear when responsibility beckons, constantly insulated by a fawning press who sole focus is race relations and climate change; nothing in the immediate demanding decisiveness and fortitude.
4
There are many problems in the world. I saw many problems when I was in the Peace Corps---there were many ways to solve them but many were caused by the U.S. Who elected us policemen of the world? Are we to have another regime change that makes things worse?
10
"Our" excuse for failing to respond?
We, the United States, simply achieved the greatest mass atrocity when our exalted President, George Jr., threw a shock and awe tantrum that killed many, and opened the door to the devil's playground, an unending ground war in the Middle East.
Our greatest response should be to leave, just leave, and hope that the UN and the nations without so much blood on their hands find a way to stop the carnage. Truth is, until the UN has a way to take monsters like Bush to the War Crimes Court, these horrors will keep happening, as there is simply no end to the greed and stupidity of those with massive armies and tiny hearts.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene
We, the United States, simply achieved the greatest mass atrocity when our exalted President, George Jr., threw a shock and awe tantrum that killed many, and opened the door to the devil's playground, an unending ground war in the Middle East.
Our greatest response should be to leave, just leave, and hope that the UN and the nations without so much blood on their hands find a way to stop the carnage. Truth is, until the UN has a way to take monsters like Bush to the War Crimes Court, these horrors will keep happening, as there is simply no end to the greed and stupidity of those with massive armies and tiny hearts.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene
4
Plenty of material for Samantha Powers to write another book about how US and the world stands idly by during genocide. ironic she is part of the administration.
7
It's the hard problem of consciousness, while we are in it we don't see we are ourselves causing trouble.
1
The best argument against an authoritarian "leader"...Syria. A tragedy like Rwanda, the Holocaust and other unremitting genocide.
1
A really disappointing column, Mr.Kristof.
I don't want "civilians like Bana" to suffer (or worse die) any more than you do.
But for you to advocate for "more robust strategies" in the light of what's been happening in Syria and considering the road that led towards that conflict, is incomprehensible and, honestly, unforgivable.
At this point, the best for Syrians is a quick government victory. It is after all the democratically elected and legitimate government as defined by the UN, whether the US, the French, the Brits, Saudi Arabia or Israel like it or not, and still has the support of the majority of Syrians.
Most Syrians in this once secular, multi-religious country do not want Sharia Law, which is what the CIA and Mossad backed mercenaries and radical Sunni Islamic terrorists, aka Saudi-Qatari backed "rebels", want to establish once Assad is gone.
This is clearly a war of US imperialism by Washington and Israeli hardliners!
Geopolitically, it is an attack on Iran, Iraq and Lebanese Hezbollah, and by proxy Russia, in an attempt to preserve US hegemony in the Middle East, and of course to win in the 21st century energy wars.
And that is what you are advocating for?
There are plenty of issues to criticize Obama for, but certainly not for failing to escalate the war in Syria. Ultimately, the sarin gas attack that was supposed to sucker Obama further into the war turned out to have been carried out by Saudi-Qatari backed "rebels".
The US needs to get out and stay out.
I don't want "civilians like Bana" to suffer (or worse die) any more than you do.
But for you to advocate for "more robust strategies" in the light of what's been happening in Syria and considering the road that led towards that conflict, is incomprehensible and, honestly, unforgivable.
At this point, the best for Syrians is a quick government victory. It is after all the democratically elected and legitimate government as defined by the UN, whether the US, the French, the Brits, Saudi Arabia or Israel like it or not, and still has the support of the majority of Syrians.
Most Syrians in this once secular, multi-religious country do not want Sharia Law, which is what the CIA and Mossad backed mercenaries and radical Sunni Islamic terrorists, aka Saudi-Qatari backed "rebels", want to establish once Assad is gone.
This is clearly a war of US imperialism by Washington and Israeli hardliners!
Geopolitically, it is an attack on Iran, Iraq and Lebanese Hezbollah, and by proxy Russia, in an attempt to preserve US hegemony in the Middle East, and of course to win in the 21st century energy wars.
And that is what you are advocating for?
There are plenty of issues to criticize Obama for, but certainly not for failing to escalate the war in Syria. Ultimately, the sarin gas attack that was supposed to sucker Obama further into the war turned out to have been carried out by Saudi-Qatari backed "rebels".
The US needs to get out and stay out.
26
There are plenty of children being killed by indiscriminate bombing in Yemen, too. Yet we are helping Saudi Arabia kill those kids. By Kristof's logic, shouldn't we be bombing Saudi runways as well?
Let's acknowledge a very significant development in US policy that helped make Syria the horror that it is -- and it's not "Obama's paralysis" or restraint in "cratering runways." It was the US facilitating the flood of arms into Syria after what was initially nonviolent resistance to the Assad regime began taking the form of a civil war. The arms fueled the spiral of violence that has torn Syria apart, and helped give rise to ISIS and other Salafist armies.
Both the US and Russia have been acting like jerks, as have most of the other actors in Syria and Yemen. They've put realpolitik far ahead of human rights, except where they can point to civilians killed by the other side as justification for intervention and for more bombing and fighting.
It's time for an ethical foreign policy oriented around democracy and human rights. Nonviolent strategic resistance should be our means of countering aggression and oppression, rather than feeding the cycle of violence. The more we live up to our ideals of democracy and freedom, the stronger international law and institutions will be, and better able to deal with war crimes, whether committed in Syria, Yemen, or anywhere else.
Let's acknowledge a very significant development in US policy that helped make Syria the horror that it is -- and it's not "Obama's paralysis" or restraint in "cratering runways." It was the US facilitating the flood of arms into Syria after what was initially nonviolent resistance to the Assad regime began taking the form of a civil war. The arms fueled the spiral of violence that has torn Syria apart, and helped give rise to ISIS and other Salafist armies.
Both the US and Russia have been acting like jerks, as have most of the other actors in Syria and Yemen. They've put realpolitik far ahead of human rights, except where they can point to civilians killed by the other side as justification for intervention and for more bombing and fighting.
It's time for an ethical foreign policy oriented around democracy and human rights. Nonviolent strategic resistance should be our means of countering aggression and oppression, rather than feeding the cycle of violence. The more we live up to our ideals of democracy and freedom, the stronger international law and institutions will be, and better able to deal with war crimes, whether committed in Syria, Yemen, or anywhere else.
6
The refugees are created by the war between the rebels and the government of Syria.
We insist on arming the rebels. The Syrian government insists that we not.
As long as we continue to arm rebels, we will create refugees.
Then we will pretend to be sad that there are so many refugees.
And express shock at the nuttierness of the government that ends up in place if we succeed in overthrowing the current one,
We insist on arming the rebels. The Syrian government insists that we not.
As long as we continue to arm rebels, we will create refugees.
Then we will pretend to be sad that there are so many refugees.
And express shock at the nuttierness of the government that ends up in place if we succeed in overthrowing the current one,
5
It was not Obama's fault that the Congress refused to support him on his "red line" in Syria in the first place. In fact, they voted against him. All choices in Syria were grotesquely awful from the start. They still are. As an expert noted last night on PBS, taking out oppressive governments is easy. We could get rid of Assad really fast if we wanted to. We've done the job three times since 9/11. But it's what comes after that's the problem. That we haven't solved so well, and every time terrorism has simply grown and left us more threatened here than ever.
6
With Obama administration's on-going failure in foreign affairs the Russians have been given an open invitation to do what ever they desire while we listen to the rhetoric coming out of the oval office and the State Department.
1
Mr. Kristof, so the runways are cratered and the bombers can't take off. What happens after that? At best, it will be the next stage in what will be known as the age of mass dispersion of populations across the globe, with concomitant rise of nationalistic resistance that leads to genocides, as climate change renders breadbaskets into deserts, major coastal cities are inundated by rising seas, and vast areas now marginally able to feed themselves become too hot to work outside. To save the greatest number of Bana al-Abeds, we must stop fighting wars for hegemony over oil fields, and convert our weapon factories to make wind turbines and solar panels. Surveying the current political landscape, only a fool would expect this to happen soon. But millions of Banas will continue to be killed until we realize that to make the world a better place, we must start doing better things. Would be nice if we could bomb our way to safety for Bana. But we can't.
8
Sadly, Dmath is absolutely correct. We cannot bomb our way to peace. The intractable situation in what we now refer to as a country named Syria was created long before the current regimes and exacerbated by the West's insatiable addiction to oil. Instead of more bombing or ground troops, this country should initiate a 'War On Oil' and drop the war on drugs. Let us triple down on research and investment on renewable and clean energy so that our symbiotic relationship with theocratic dictatorships such as Saudi Arabia may be severed. As powerful as America may seem to be we are not omnipotent and forever capable of rescuing all those who need to be rescued. Let us instead work to devalue the importance of oil and by extension the need to spill anymore blood on that landscapes.
1
Nicholas, War is not the answer. Never. Never was, never will be.
5
The Dalai Lama often tells us war should be abolished in the 21st century, it is a past century tool used by humanity mistakenly to settle disputes. It is the opposite of seeking peace.
2
War crimes, which this appears to be, requires a world response. Nobody should be able to deliberately target civilians and hospitals without repercussion. Standing back and letting them fight it out in this situation is not a viable plan. Create a safe zone for civilians to leave, then, if the combatants still want to fight it out, we stand clear.
Obama and his inept destabilizing actions in the Middle East caused this. He is directly responsible. And now he says, who, me? He wraps himself in the false virtue of doing nothing because it's not "our" war. It may not be our war, but it is his war.
And now, after five years, you wake up?
And now, after five years, you wake up?
5
Inept destabilizing actions in the Middle East? You mean like invading Iraq, toppling its dictator and dismissing its entire government and military without a follow-up plan, selecting the Iraqi occupation authority based on political loyalty and religious views rather than experience and competence, giving rise to a civil and sectarian war, signing an agreement for all U.S. troops to leave by 2011 regardless of the conditions on the ground? Just in case it is not crystal clear, all of those things were done by his predecessor. All President Obama did was to keep us out of the growing sinkhole that is Syria.
5
No. I mean like setting Libya aflame, destabilizing Egypt, and deciding and publicly saying that "Assad must go" with no plan for either pushing him out, or for what to do after he leaves. I mean like crowing about an Arab Spring. I mean like giving false hope to rebels in Syria, and then not supporting them. I mean like cutting and running in a stabilized Iraq, when the word ISIS did not exist, which he patently did not have to do. I mean like causing a huge refugee crisis. I mean like turning the EU against itself over Muslim immigration from Libya and Syria, and so causing Brexit.
Of course I should have known it was all Bush's fault, how could it be otherwise in the left wing echo chamber. So was every other Obama failure.
The only thing you are good at is changing the subject. And absolving your pet Mr. Obama from any responsibility.
For a guy who won the Nobel Peace Prize, he is a almost a unique disaster.
Of course I should have known it was all Bush's fault, how could it be otherwise in the left wing echo chamber. So was every other Obama failure.
The only thing you are good at is changing the subject. And absolving your pet Mr. Obama from any responsibility.
For a guy who won the Nobel Peace Prize, he is a almost a unique disaster.
1
When? How about when our feckless Congress actually declare a war. If the cause is critical enough, then our entire government needs to consider all actions, decide on a course, sell it to the American people and then support it fully. Asking Americans to stand behind another ME misadventure is, at this point, falling on largely deaf ears. You can't expect Americans to give up the lives of their sons and daughters; or watch our military budget grow exponentially at the cost of our own peoples' needs, without more than a lot of back and forth among pundits about what might/might now work. I am on the fence about Syria- I 'hear' both sides and see merit in certain arguments either way. I also don't know nearly enough about the complexities of geo-politics in this region. Where is the leadership that includes both the President and the Congress coming to some consensus?
2
So many blots that I cannot see a legacy! Give me a break Nick.
3
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see, and you are unfortunately in that group.
5
This is a cheap shot at Obama. What if he'd done what you are suggesting and killed 100 civilians? Would you have supported him then? And Syria is not the only country we need to consider in this. What about Russia. What about the countries around Syria? What are the ultimate goals here? If we broke Syria more we would wind up being responsible for fixing it. The one thing we can do, and may not be doing enough, is to allow Syrian refugees into America after careful vetting. But that implies that our Congress, presently non-functional, would do their jobs as well.
Don't put all the blame on Obama. If Congress really cared about this they would do something.
Don't put all the blame on Obama. If Congress really cared about this they would do something.
4
In fairness to Obama , has history not taught us that to get involved in the Middle East is a deathwish. The situation there is a total catastrophe.
8
So, Obama now stands accused of dithering while Aleppo burns. And because of his inaction civilians in Aleppo suffer the onslaught unleashed by the butcher Assad with the support of the paranoid Putin. Therefore, Obama must now do something to stop the carnage in Syria and to protect his "legacy." What legacy? You just laid a genocidal war on his lap.
Notice how the argument shifts from the failure of Obama's inaction, to a genocidal Assad bolstered by Russian opportunism, to escalating Syria's civil war.
So it follows that, as the winner of the Nobel Peace prize, Obama must use military force to end all of the above. Have we learned anything from the misery caused by the Bush administration and its hubris? Remember the nation-building neocon drivel? Do you remember when US Armed Forces had to pay murderous Iraqi factions to stop shooting at our troops? Remember the days leading to the Surge? Apparently not.
Notice how the argument shifts from the failure of Obama's inaction, to a genocidal Assad bolstered by Russian opportunism, to escalating Syria's civil war.
So it follows that, as the winner of the Nobel Peace prize, Obama must use military force to end all of the above. Have we learned anything from the misery caused by the Bush administration and its hubris? Remember the nation-building neocon drivel? Do you remember when US Armed Forces had to pay murderous Iraqi factions to stop shooting at our troops? Remember the days leading to the Surge? Apparently not.
22
You're "wary of military adventurism" but understand that the "military toolbox" can save lives? You can't have it both ways, but apparently neither you nor Obama understand that. These half-hearted efforts give us results like Isis, Syria and Iraq and allow our enemies to fill the vacuums we create.
2
It doesn't work that way, Nick. Contrary to what the Republicans have us believe, we are NOT the police of the world. Yes, we help humanity, but we should learn our lesson from the past to DO NOT make things worse by choosing war and bloodshed. Osama bin Laden would not have become the monster he was if America had not supplied him with arms to enable the mujahideens against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. What did innocent Afghanis every do to you Nick and fellow Americans, that they had to pay for Soviet invasion, Taliban atrocities, bin Laden's turning against the very USA that made him powerful? Ditto in Iraq. The Syrian war is a civil war, brothers fighting each other. One enabled by Russia, the other (supposedly rebels) by America and its allies. How many more times?
20
I would pose the question differently: When will the people of the Middle East act? They have been slaughtering each other for over 1,000 yrs. Many many people have tried to bring peace to the region, all have failed. We have been there for over a decade and all we have managed to do is to give modern weapons to 6th century tribesmen. We can not solve their problems, only they can and they are more interested in retribution and violence; they are in a word, insane.
All of the plans for the Middle East advanced by the 'Arm Chair Quarterbacks' require more killing. Haven't we had enough?
We need to come home and spend our time, talent, and treasure on our own problems. Let us rebuild our roads, house our homeless, care for our elderly, fix our schools. Let the people of the Middle East decide their own fate.
All of the plans for the Middle East advanced by the 'Arm Chair Quarterbacks' require more killing. Haven't we had enough?
We need to come home and spend our time, talent, and treasure on our own problems. Let us rebuild our roads, house our homeless, care for our elderly, fix our schools. Let the people of the Middle East decide their own fate.
7
The difficulty with your argument is that governments do defend their existence, by force if necessary. Lincoln could have just let the South secede. In stead he decided to use force. And,...
roughly 2% of the population, an estimated 620,000 men, lost their lives in the line of duty. And it is not as if women and children did not suffer - they too did.
What would we think if say France had stepped up on the side of the South and asked Lincoln to cease and desist?
Assad is a cruel man -no doubt about it. But it was WE who created the situation which brought about his cruelty - a form of self defense which most or all governments employ.
What are our options? Are we going to kill more Syrians and risk war with Moscow because "Assad must go"? Have we not learned the lessons of removing other "bad men" like Saddam and Gaddafi?
roughly 2% of the population, an estimated 620,000 men, lost their lives in the line of duty. And it is not as if women and children did not suffer - they too did.
What would we think if say France had stepped up on the side of the South and asked Lincoln to cease and desist?
Assad is a cruel man -no doubt about it. But it was WE who created the situation which brought about his cruelty - a form of self defense which most or all governments employ.
What are our options? Are we going to kill more Syrians and risk war with Moscow because "Assad must go"? Have we not learned the lessons of removing other "bad men" like Saddam and Gaddafi?
8
Barack Obama won two terms as President by popular and electoral college majorities with a mandate to end massive American military misadventures. Drone and cyber war along with special operations and intelligence has become the default way of war.
Since 9/11/01 a mere 0.75% of Americans have volunteered to put on the military uniform of any American armed force. America annually spends as much on it's military as the next eight nations combined including 8x Russia and 3x China. On a nominal GDP basis America with 5% of humanity has about 22% of the planets economic power. With 7% of humans the European Union has 23% of nominal world GDP. Relative to the rest of the world while America is still the preeminent superpower with important allies it is not as powerful as it used to be. Other nations have risen.
How where, when and why can this American power be deployed in any foreign ethnic sectarian civil wars? It is not clear how American interests can follow American values in Syria and Iraq.
Without the support of the American people no military nor diplomatic effort is possible. Without the support of the local peoples no victory nor peace is attainable. Beneath the ethnic conflict among the Arabs, Turks, Kurds, Europeans and Persians in the Middle East there is the sectarian fight among Jews, Sunni and Shia Muslims and Catholic Orthodox Protestant Christians.
Since 9/11/01 a mere 0.75% of Americans have volunteered to put on the military uniform of any American armed force. America annually spends as much on it's military as the next eight nations combined including 8x Russia and 3x China. On a nominal GDP basis America with 5% of humanity has about 22% of the planets economic power. With 7% of humans the European Union has 23% of nominal world GDP. Relative to the rest of the world while America is still the preeminent superpower with important allies it is not as powerful as it used to be. Other nations have risen.
How where, when and why can this American power be deployed in any foreign ethnic sectarian civil wars? It is not clear how American interests can follow American values in Syria and Iraq.
Without the support of the American people no military nor diplomatic effort is possible. Without the support of the local peoples no victory nor peace is attainable. Beneath the ethnic conflict among the Arabs, Turks, Kurds, Europeans and Persians in the Middle East there is the sectarian fight among Jews, Sunni and Shia Muslims and Catholic Orthodox Protestant Christians.
6
If nick has any ancestral memory in his genes, he would shudder from the Armenian genocides, vow never to subject human beings to violence.
1
While we usually agree with Kristof, this blot is not on Obama, it is another manifestation of GOP'er obstruction, since Obama was told in no uncertain terms in 2013, by Sen. McCain, that impeachment would result if he tried to intervene in Syria:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2013/09/06/mccain-o...
Since that date, Congress has refused to take a single vote over fighting ISIS/ISIL/Daesh in Syria - not one - with no resolution for use of force being able to pass.
The straight-line result of the GOP'er sedition to keep government from functioning is the debacle Kristof describes, which is properly hung around the necks of McCain, McConnell, and Ryan, for all time.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2013/09/06/mccain-o...
Since that date, Congress has refused to take a single vote over fighting ISIS/ISIL/Daesh in Syria - not one - with no resolution for use of force being able to pass.
The straight-line result of the GOP'er sedition to keep government from functioning is the debacle Kristof describes, which is properly hung around the necks of McCain, McConnell, and Ryan, for all time.
37
Kristof has got it exactly backwards. Obama's reticence to start a full-scale war in Syria is not a blot on his legacy, but rather a mark of rare statesmanship amidst all the war-mongering hysteria being fomented by the media-military complex.
When will we ever learn, Kristof ironically asks from behind the safety of his computer screen, as he disingenuously fails to remark upon lessons apparently unlearned from the debacles in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. How will little Bana, whom Kristof shamelessly uses as a prop in his liberal interventionist propaganda piece, benefit if Obama does his bidding to bomb bomb bomb Syria as an act of aggression toward Russia? Perhaps the columnist missed the Senate testimony of Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford last month, in which he warned that a no-fly zone would be tantamount to declaring war on both Syria and Russia.
Hillary Clinton is all for a no-fly zone. So be patient, Mr. Kristof - the real blot on the landscape may be yet to come.
Too bad Obama can't get a third term like the Clintons.
When will we ever learn, Kristof ironically asks from behind the safety of his computer screen, as he disingenuously fails to remark upon lessons apparently unlearned from the debacles in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. How will little Bana, whom Kristof shamelessly uses as a prop in his liberal interventionist propaganda piece, benefit if Obama does his bidding to bomb bomb bomb Syria as an act of aggression toward Russia? Perhaps the columnist missed the Senate testimony of Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford last month, in which he warned that a no-fly zone would be tantamount to declaring war on both Syria and Russia.
Hillary Clinton is all for a no-fly zone. So be patient, Mr. Kristof - the real blot on the landscape may be yet to come.
Too bad Obama can't get a third term like the Clintons.
64
It's not the question of US being unconcerned to the lost millions of lives or being mute on further such loss and miseries,but the crux of the matter is that even if the US intervenes in Syria, there's no guarantee of the desired outcome if such action nor could one rule out an all out war between various powers global/regional involved in Syria. This would be the remedy worse than the problem. So nothing like a blot on Obama's legacy.
16
The US has a long long bloody history of meddling with sovereign nations' affairs, in the name of geopolitical powerflexing aka spreading democracy. The very fact that they have chosen war and violent methods is bound to bring suffering and misery. WW II was a rare coalition of the entire world against a brutal genocidal madman. "Marked by mass deaths of civilians, including the Holocaust (in which approximately 11 million people were killed)and the strategic bombing of industrial and population centres (in which approximately one million were killed, and which included the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki), it resulted in an estimated 50 million to 85 million fatalities. These made World War II the deadliest conflict in human history." No other war is justified since the WWII. The very fact that human beings have not collectively learned the lessons is testimony to our foolishness, "“Problems cannot be solved with the same mind set that created them.” Us against them. Evil against fellow less evil.
3
In a sense civilisation is skin deep only, scratch the skin and one finds the same barbarity that characterised the primitiveness.
1
"So far, Obama’s paralysis has been linked to the loss of perhaps half a million lives in Syria, the rise of extremist groups like the Islamic State, genocide against the Yazidi and Christians, the worst refugee crisis in more than 60 years and the rise of ultranationalist groups in Europe."
That's a rather broad statement. While your sympathy for the Syrian crisis is understandable, your broadside against President Obama is not.
Obama inherited military involvement in two countries--Afghanistan and Iraq--that cost the country trillion+ dollars and many lives. He was understandably reluctant to commit more troops and money to fight wars abroad.
The 2003 US invasion of Iraq, which dismantled the entire security force, led to the Sunni-led insurgency that would later become ISIS. The Sunnis vs. Shiites imbroglio in Iraq and elsewhere, which is centuries old, did not help. Minority Sunni population of Iraq, which had it good under Hussein, now suffered under a government dominated by the Shiite majority, adding to the problems.
As for the troop withdrawal, W. Bush was signed the Status of Forces agreement in 2008, which planned for all American troops to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. American troops were not exactly welcome in Iraq and without Iraqi parliament authorization for them to stay, it was wise to get out.
As chaotic and tragic as it is, to blame the Syrian civil war--exacerbated by the involvement of Turkey, Russia and others--on Obama is also unfair.
That's a rather broad statement. While your sympathy for the Syrian crisis is understandable, your broadside against President Obama is not.
Obama inherited military involvement in two countries--Afghanistan and Iraq--that cost the country trillion+ dollars and many lives. He was understandably reluctant to commit more troops and money to fight wars abroad.
The 2003 US invasion of Iraq, which dismantled the entire security force, led to the Sunni-led insurgency that would later become ISIS. The Sunnis vs. Shiites imbroglio in Iraq and elsewhere, which is centuries old, did not help. Minority Sunni population of Iraq, which had it good under Hussein, now suffered under a government dominated by the Shiite majority, adding to the problems.
As for the troop withdrawal, W. Bush was signed the Status of Forces agreement in 2008, which planned for all American troops to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. American troops were not exactly welcome in Iraq and without Iraqi parliament authorization for them to stay, it was wise to get out.
As chaotic and tragic as it is, to blame the Syrian civil war--exacerbated by the involvement of Turkey, Russia and others--on Obama is also unfair.
179
At fault because he called for regime change. Foolish
2
I generally agree with Nick Kristoff, but he has got it wrong.
Obama's mistake is not that he didn't bomb Assad; the mistake is to demand Assad leave as a condition of negotiating peace. By siding with the Al Qaeda-backed rebels' demand for Assad to leave, we give Assad no reason to negotiate peace.
Obama's mistake is not that he didn't bomb Assad; the mistake is to demand Assad leave as a condition of negotiating peace. By siding with the Al Qaeda-backed rebels' demand for Assad to leave, we give Assad no reason to negotiate peace.
20
Yes. That is a stain will will forever be part of Obama legacy.
Is this situation a blot on President Obama's legacy? Is it any less a blot on our nation, on the Western world, on the direct actors in the Middle East? Is it reasonable to place President Obama front and center for blame (such an important part of our national political psyche)? Arguably not.
Much as I understand and appreciate Mr. Kristof's moral stance, the situation is far from clear as to what the USA should do. Our revulsion is predictable. That would be the case for the general populace of most modern, industrialized nations. Mr. Kristof relies, in part, on photographs of tragedy and misery. That is a common tactic, but it does not outline a sensible strategy.
It is not clear what the Syrians want: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/syria/2016-09-14/what-syrians-want . There is a tendency for western journalists to rely heavily on the opinions of articulate supporters of government opposition.
It is a safe bet that comparisons between the genocide in Rwanda and are problematic. It is crystal clear that no western nation has done such a good job in terms of interventions in the Middle East--since the early 20th century. There is no consensus--not even close--between experts on the advisability of any direct military intervention by the USA in Syria: http://www.cfr.org/region/syria/ri370 .
Much as I understand and appreciate Mr. Kristof's moral stance, the situation is far from clear as to what the USA should do. Our revulsion is predictable. That would be the case for the general populace of most modern, industrialized nations. Mr. Kristof relies, in part, on photographs of tragedy and misery. That is a common tactic, but it does not outline a sensible strategy.
It is not clear what the Syrians want: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/syria/2016-09-14/what-syrians-want . There is a tendency for western journalists to rely heavily on the opinions of articulate supporters of government opposition.
It is a safe bet that comparisons between the genocide in Rwanda and are problematic. It is crystal clear that no western nation has done such a good job in terms of interventions in the Middle East--since the early 20th century. There is no consensus--not even close--between experts on the advisability of any direct military intervention by the USA in Syria: http://www.cfr.org/region/syria/ri370 .
13
Powerful argument! I saw Mr. Kristof on PBS last night with the same comments. Examples like this and so many, many others of Obama's weakness and passivity which this article could cite (but respectfully does not) have completely given to the rise of Trump. Nothing else explains it. America is looking for strength and leadership. It is horrifying to me to watch Obama playing golf or vacationing in Hawaii, smiling and joking on business trips, etc. while these atrocities play out. Where are his management responsibilities? We don't need a figurehead leader like the Queen of England. Is this how FDR and Churchill conducted their administrations? Fiddling while Rome burns.
4
Any war will have tragic impacts on non-combatants and most of them are innocents that voters and politicians never see. American media was very careful to insulate the public from the "Shock and Awe" Rubble Bouncing exercise in Iraq as an angry nation had been whipped up for war by the Bush Administration and a servile Fourth Estate. Also largely hidden is the ongoing long term tragedy of the broad poisoning of the war torn areas with American Depleted Uranium munitions which will yield both defects and pain for countless generations.
Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan should have shown us that the military cannot be the world's policeman but can get a lot of people killed. The US has been playing around in this part of the world since the end of World War II and stability and peace eludes the people who reside there.
The real blot will be not getting out and staying out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Peace will only come to that part of the world when Islam reforms itself from within and western powers stop enabling the carnage by weapons sales.
Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan should have shown us that the military cannot be the world's policeman but can get a lot of people killed. The US has been playing around in this part of the world since the end of World War II and stability and peace eludes the people who reside there.
The real blot will be not getting out and staying out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Peace will only come to that part of the world when Islam reforms itself from within and western powers stop enabling the carnage by weapons sales.
27
President Obama's "paralysis" has kept out of this war. That's enough of a legacy, considering the blunders of his predecessor. "Do something" is not a plan. A plan would be giving Assad back his country and calling off the treacherous opposition, so ISIS can be subdued by his army backed by Russia and Iran. Hopefully the migrants will then return and stop undermining Europe. I don't care if the Saudis and Israel don't like it. Let them learn to live with a strong Iran. They haven't been such good allies lately.
143
This is the best plan I've heard. As far as I can see, there is no non-religious democratic group in Syria. It's Assad and his tiny religious minority that will be slaughtered (along with the Christians and Druze).
1
As I see it, keeping clear of Syria to the extent he has done is one of President Obama's greatest achievements. Sometimes, as horrific as war is, our involvement does more harm than good. In that region of the world our intervention has caused decades of turmoil. Decades. Maybe it's time to back away and let those folks solve their own problems. We are not helping. Our "plans of action" often result in a worse mess and delay any long lasting resolution of conflict. The more we keep fooling ourselves, the more people will die. We can't end it, but we keep thinking we can. That's insanity.
What I would like to see? More of what Angela Merkel has done--give refugees a place to come. Normal people don't want to live in a war zone, even if it is their home land. They want a place to live, raise their families, and prosper. They want hope. I'd like to see us take in every Syrian who wants that chance, but that's not our current national attitude toward refugees and immigrants. That's our failure, and that's not Barack Obama's fault.
What I would like to see? More of what Angela Merkel has done--give refugees a place to come. Normal people don't want to live in a war zone, even if it is their home land. They want a place to live, raise their families, and prosper. They want hope. I'd like to see us take in every Syrian who wants that chance, but that's not our current national attitude toward refugees and immigrants. That's our failure, and that's not Barack Obama's fault.
196
Amen. Couldn't have said it better.
1
Where do you stand on that Krisof?
1
How long after we saved Kuwait until majorities of public opinion fell under the Islamist sway and more often badmouthed America? How long after we saved Afghanistan from the Soviets until 9/11 happened, and we received resistance from all sides after the free revolution we gave them in toppling the Taliban? Have you reported much about what's happening to public opinion in the Balkans?
Let's intervene and accept refugees from populations that aren't ingrates. As far as Syria goes, this means helping Yazidis get out. It means helping Christians get out. The Arab Muslim population supported and staffed the creation of ISIS to resist the US in Iraq. And now they want to live in... the United States?
Sorry, Mr. Kristof. These people deserve each other. They've been finishing their bizarro church services with "Death To America" for decades. I'm more than willing to let them live in their Islamic Wonderland, and to let them put the perfection of that governance model on the world stage for all to see.
Let's intervene and accept refugees from populations that aren't ingrates. As far as Syria goes, this means helping Yazidis get out. It means helping Christians get out. The Arab Muslim population supported and staffed the creation of ISIS to resist the US in Iraq. And now they want to live in... the United States?
Sorry, Mr. Kristof. These people deserve each other. They've been finishing their bizarro church services with "Death To America" for decades. I'm more than willing to let them live in their Islamic Wonderland, and to let them put the perfection of that governance model on the world stage for all to see.
10
Foolish America, trying to win praises by displaying military might. Instead of wiping tears.
1
Having read some of the comments, I despair. The choice is not between sending ground groups or doing nothing. The options are fewer now because of our passivity in the face of the Assad and Putin actions, but does that mean we do nothing, ever? Quite a while back, the presidential palace itself could have received an air message that genocide and war crimes can't continue with complete impunity. In fact, there was a time long before Putin ever arrived when the Syrian air force could have been destroyed. We did nothing. It was a failure of imagination and wishful thinking to not see where this was to lead.
6
Jeffrey Waingrow:
"The choice is not between sending ground groups or doing nothing."
****
Nor is the choice of sending one's own children to war or doing nothing, which is the challenge de rigueur of many Times' commenters.
When a president refuses to use military force, not going to war becomes the only option. When no war is the only option, others take advantage.
"The choice is not between sending ground groups or doing nothing."
****
Nor is the choice of sending one's own children to war or doing nothing, which is the challenge de rigueur of many Times' commenters.
When a president refuses to use military force, not going to war becomes the only option. When no war is the only option, others take advantage.
1
It was certainly a failure of imagination, unless it was a lack of concern, which would be worse. ("Unreal, give back to us what once you gave: The imagination that we spurned and crave." ~ Wallace Stevens, "To the One of Fictive Music")
Let us use that imagination again. Suppose we do nothing, as we have done thus far. Where might this lead? As Nick asks, When does it become too much? At a million deaths? The administration and commenters think that Assad is the only alternative to jihadists, but this is totally backward. Mr. Assad and his army are practically a jihadi-production facility.
This war, because of its complexity, needs the mightiest sword to force a settlement of one kind or another. We have it, but we won't unsheathe it. This timidity is passed off as calculated wisdom. Putin knows what Obama is. He has taken the measure of the man, found him lacking. He will do as he likes until this president exits the stage, as this paper reported two days ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/05/world/middleeast/syria-russia-us-elect...
Let us use that imagination again. Suppose we do nothing, as we have done thus far. Where might this lead? As Nick asks, When does it become too much? At a million deaths? The administration and commenters think that Assad is the only alternative to jihadists, but this is totally backward. Mr. Assad and his army are practically a jihadi-production facility.
This war, because of its complexity, needs the mightiest sword to force a settlement of one kind or another. We have it, but we won't unsheathe it. This timidity is passed off as calculated wisdom. Putin knows what Obama is. He has taken the measure of the man, found him lacking. He will do as he likes until this president exits the stage, as this paper reported two days ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/05/world/middleeast/syria-russia-us-elect...
1
The blot? Do you mean to imply that failing to crater runways is the lone stain on Obama's legacy? What about not prosecuting torturers or Wall Street criminals? What about hunting down and prosecuting more whistleblowers than all other presidents, combined? What about the civilians killed by drone attacks and converting Libya into a lawless, terrorist training facility and arms depot?
3
Forgive us American's for being completely war fatigued. What we're hearing about Syria is what we heard about Iraq, then Afghanistan, then Lybia, etc. There are high school students who have known nothing but America being at war. It may sound like a hippie argument but it really does seem like we always have money for bombs and tanks yet we watch as trains derail and pipes poison in our tired infrastructure. What's happening to the innocents in Syria is truly sad but where does it stop? These are all quagmires with no end in sight and if we haven't learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, then Syria is a fool's errand. The real blot on Obama's legacy is his allowing the continuation of Wall Street's robbing the middle class. Not committing us to another costly and endless entanglement in yet another Middle East country is one of his few notches in the win column. (And this is coming from someone that voted for him.)
142
I have got news for you! Mr. Trump has promised to "re-build" the Military, which already spends more money than the rest of the World combined, getting ready for yet more wars! So, you are going to see more trains derailed, more poisonous lead in your drinking water, more accidents in the airports and more crumbling of an infra-structure that is bursting at the seams.
1
Why should the US intervene more than we already have in Syria's civil war? Why should we once again have to send soldiers & money? This is not our fight. Why do you never demand Israel intervene? Israel spouts on & on about genocide but I seldom see them send soldiers or money to actually fight it in other countries. I'd prefer to see the US get out & stay out.
25
President Obama's only obligation in foreign affairs is to protect the interests of the United States.
That's the reason why he is president and not the pope.
Bana's situation is tragic. It's personal. It hurts. It's the Middle East and Islamic civil war writ small. It's not very different than the Pakistani man who murdered his sister because she married a Christian. The human tragedies caused by the theocratic civil wars that will not change the belief systems of the people who live there.
Mr Kristof's column is simply one of crying out, genuinely and compassionately, that the carnage in Syria is evil and inhuman. None of the 9 point plans, none of his suggestions, none of his angst will change that reality. Theocratic wars, like civil wars, unleash the beasts that reside in way too many human souls.
The people of the Middle East have to change their theocracies ... or not.
That's the reason why he is president and not the pope.
Bana's situation is tragic. It's personal. It hurts. It's the Middle East and Islamic civil war writ small. It's not very different than the Pakistani man who murdered his sister because she married a Christian. The human tragedies caused by the theocratic civil wars that will not change the belief systems of the people who live there.
Mr Kristof's column is simply one of crying out, genuinely and compassionately, that the carnage in Syria is evil and inhuman. None of the 9 point plans, none of his suggestions, none of his angst will change that reality. Theocratic wars, like civil wars, unleash the beasts that reside in way too many human souls.
The people of the Middle East have to change their theocracies ... or not.
288
Perhaps President Obama wasn't aware of his "obligation" when he drew the "Red Line" in the sand.
Agree, an articulate primal scream.
Maybe the First Lady could hold a sign that says "Save our Girls" similar to the strong policy that combatted Boko Haram's atrocities?
Kristoff...the entomology of the term "Never Again" was a creation of the "victims" of Nazi concentration camps, first seen on handwritten signs held up by surviving inmates of Buchenwald (Germany) in April, 1945. It later morphed into a battle cry during the formation of the Jewish State of Israel, and lives on in the same form. Even an anti-Zionist like yourself should know this.
Bill, are you being played again, like you were with the Muslim Brotherhood in 2011, when you interviewed Sondos Asem, the Egyptian woman who you described as "pretty much the opposite of the stereotypical bearded Brotherhood activist"? She told you, quite convincingly, that the Brotherhood only wanted a place at Egypt's political table, a voice to represent them. You believed her propaganda. You were wrong.
Who's really sending you those Tweets...a 7 year old girl, an anti-government terrorist, a CIA operative, a Russian soldier?
Bill, are you being played again, like you were with the Muslim Brotherhood in 2011, when you interviewed Sondos Asem, the Egyptian woman who you described as "pretty much the opposite of the stereotypical bearded Brotherhood activist"? She told you, quite convincingly, that the Brotherhood only wanted a place at Egypt's political table, a voice to represent them. You believed her propaganda. You were wrong.
Who's really sending you those Tweets...a 7 year old girl, an anti-government terrorist, a CIA operative, a Russian soldier?
5
I obviously meant, "etymology" of the term "Never Again"...I wasn't referring to insects.
When innocent civilians like Bana Alabed are accidentally killed as some surely will in the intervention that Kristof and others are calling for the Russian RT network, TeleSur in Venezuela with its long reach through Latin American will get the propaganda machine loaded. Worse, ISIS and other Jihadists groups, Hamas, Hezbollah etc. will exploit that as well.
500,000 dead is not President Obama's fault. He did not create this situation. It is an extension of the Bush wars and other interventions and always forgetten the dynamics of Middle East politics and culture.
Perhaps Syrians are to blame for Syria. We're not their momma.
I appreciate the President's steady hand. No more PTSD survivors please for an uncertain cause. He is right, we are likely to do more harm than good. Besides I see no massive demonstrations in the streets screaming War Now!
500,000 dead is not President Obama's fault. He did not create this situation. It is an extension of the Bush wars and other interventions and always forgetten the dynamics of Middle East politics and culture.
Perhaps Syrians are to blame for Syria. We're not their momma.
I appreciate the President's steady hand. No more PTSD survivors please for an uncertain cause. He is right, we are likely to do more harm than good. Besides I see no massive demonstrations in the streets screaming War Now!
17
American military power: always the answer for men like Kristof. I guess for him the likelihood of an actual war with Russia is just a bonus!
20
Unfortunately, yes, Mr. Kristof is one of the many chicken-hawks who have never served in the military and have never put themselves in harm's way for country - and who have no children in uniform either. Much like the so-called neocons that created the mess that is today's Iraq while spilling other people's blood, Mr. Kristof has no skin in the game so he's free to call for more and more U.S. involvement. In that sense, he is just like a loud, obnoxious heckler on the sidelines shouting insults.
4
Will American civilians never learn that U.S. military power is not a force for humanitarian good?
Has Kristof forgotten Libya already? And are Iraq and Afghanistan going so well we need another military engagement?
And the authors of those policies are the one's he's listening to?
Has Kristof forgotten Libya already? And are Iraq and Afghanistan going so well we need another military engagement?
And the authors of those policies are the one's he's listening to?
6
There will be a number of blots on President Obama’s legacy, a rapidly imploding ObamaCare clearly being the most serious. Syria, however, is somewhat more balanced.
I’d suggest that history will judge his dealings with Syria as successful to the extent success was possible for anyone in a managerial role but dreadfully inadequate when it came to the central strategic decisions.
For instance, at no time so far was a large invasion employing U.S. troops salable to the American public; and despite serious provocations, he has managed to avoid that – or simply refused to do it. A lot of American servicemen probably owe their lives and their families’ well-being to that decision, even if a lot of Syrians have suffered for it, even if Europe has become destabilized by it.
But what might have happened if he’d had the will to enforce his red-line against Assad’s use of chemical weapons by bombing Syrian government military assets, when he could have with such devastating effects and before Russia became materially involved in propping-up Assad? Possibly, Russia would not have concluded that we were a paper tiger, not gotten as centrally involved in saving an Assad that without such efforts by now might have been defeated by insurgent forces.
The biggest strategic failure is in not figuring out what Vladimir Putin wants within our power to grant at a cost we’d be willing to pay that would cause him to drastically reduce the killing of civilians in Syria.
I’d suggest that history will judge his dealings with Syria as successful to the extent success was possible for anyone in a managerial role but dreadfully inadequate when it came to the central strategic decisions.
For instance, at no time so far was a large invasion employing U.S. troops salable to the American public; and despite serious provocations, he has managed to avoid that – or simply refused to do it. A lot of American servicemen probably owe their lives and their families’ well-being to that decision, even if a lot of Syrians have suffered for it, even if Europe has become destabilized by it.
But what might have happened if he’d had the will to enforce his red-line against Assad’s use of chemical weapons by bombing Syrian government military assets, when he could have with such devastating effects and before Russia became materially involved in propping-up Assad? Possibly, Russia would not have concluded that we were a paper tiger, not gotten as centrally involved in saving an Assad that without such efforts by now might have been defeated by insurgent forces.
The biggest strategic failure is in not figuring out what Vladimir Putin wants within our power to grant at a cost we’d be willing to pay that would cause him to drastically reduce the killing of civilians in Syria.
5
Your never ending subjective analysis of Obama's negatives prevent me to give any credence to your view!
7
bob:
My analysis of Obama's negatives AND positives is objective. Your unwillingness or inability to engage on that basis renders YOUR view irrelevant.
My analysis of Obama's negatives AND positives is objective. Your unwillingness or inability to engage on that basis renders YOUR view irrelevant.
1
President Obama is a pacifist at heart, incapable of using military strength, and with an unrelenting belief in the power of his own words, a mistake, in my view, when dealing with Middle Eastern leaders. Words really don't matter there.
Interesting were Shimon Peres' observations, quite mistaken I think*:
"I do think that I can explain the American pattern. America knows how to throw a punch when it has to, in order to keep the world balanced. But the punches follow a set procedure. They don’t begin by shooting. They try all the other means first — economic sanctions, political pressure, negotiations, everything possible.
“But in the end,” he added, “if none of this works, then President Obama will use military power against Iran. I am sure of it.”
*****
* "Shimon Peres on Obama, Iran and the Path to Peace", 1/9/13,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/magazine/shimon-peres-on-obama-iran-an...
Interesting were Shimon Peres' observations, quite mistaken I think*:
"I do think that I can explain the American pattern. America knows how to throw a punch when it has to, in order to keep the world balanced. But the punches follow a set procedure. They don’t begin by shooting. They try all the other means first — economic sanctions, political pressure, negotiations, everything possible.
“But in the end,” he added, “if none of this works, then President Obama will use military power against Iran. I am sure of it.”
*****
* "Shimon Peres on Obama, Iran and the Path to Peace", 1/9/13,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/magazine/shimon-peres-on-obama-iran-an...
3
When Kristof sends his children to fight and die in Syria against a fully equipped Russian proxy (as well as Russian front line forces fully committed to Assad) then he would be more than justified in attacking Obama. Until then, he should forgive his loyal readership for profoundly disagreeing with his assessment. Syria is a zero sum game. Either support Assad, or support the Jihadis trying to topple him. Obama has chosen a third way, do what we can to limit the civilian casualities without doing anything to tip the balance in favor of either attrocious outcome.
389
America could have easily destroyed Assad's air force with targeted cruise missiles before Russia got involved. This would not have required ground troops. His palaces would have been appropriate targets. Yet we didn't do ANYTHING! Putin saw this and jumped right in. Nobody wants to send their children in harm's way. But when they put on that uniform as volunteers, not draftees, they must know or should know, that they become Putin's, Assad's, Kim Il Jung's etc. targets. You cannot ignore evil men who have H-bombs!! They won't just go away!!
2
"Obama has chosen a third way, do what we can to limit the civilian casualities [sic] without doing anything to tip the balance in favor of either attrocious [sic] outcome."
Yes Jason. Obama's chosen the dumbest strategy there is (what on earth are we doing to limit civilian casualties?) and in the process he limits neither civilian casualties nor prevents tipping the balance. Truly an amateur, and that's all that would have needed to be said except that in his case his amateurish approach to the Middle East has caused and will continue to millions of deaths. President Obama is a complete failure in foreign policy and will wear this as his enduring legacy.
Yes Jason. Obama's chosen the dumbest strategy there is (what on earth are we doing to limit civilian casualties?) and in the process he limits neither civilian casualties nor prevents tipping the balance. Truly an amateur, and that's all that would have needed to be said except that in his case his amateurish approach to the Middle East has caused and will continue to millions of deaths. President Obama is a complete failure in foreign policy and will wear this as his enduring legacy.
1
This is not only a problem of the United States, it is a problem of the world: of humanity. Let everyone not only speak but act strongly to end it.
14
I applaud your constant humanitarian efforts. However, I think you are mistaken in thinking one can simply bomb the military runways of Syria. Sure you might have support of some countries but what about Iran and Russia? Do you think we would have a nuclear deal with Iran? Do you think the Russians stand idly by in their various pressure points? Do you think this has not been debated and discussed inside the White House? The mistake was in supporting the unfortunate rebels in the first place. Totally unrealistic to think Iran and Russia would let them win. Maybe we should intervene in Egypt where another authoritarian government tramples its people. It worked so well in Libya, just another air support intervention. Unfortunately, the best solution is to negotiate a surrender of the rebels and work to eliminate ISIS which is the threat to our national security. Syria never was.
4
Avoid foreign entanglements. Lead by example. We threw off the shackles of British oppression with the material help of France (not troops) and founded a society of our own.
The British, who hired mercenaries lost.
It is up to the people of a nation to make their own way. We should have relationships with as many foreigners (in power and out) to make intelligent decisions about providing support not troops.
This punditry, Monday morning quarterbacking has no place in serious political discourse. Obama did what the people who elected him wanted him to do. Private citizens can follow their dreams and go over and fight on the side they want to. Have you gone, Nicolas?
The British, who hired mercenaries lost.
It is up to the people of a nation to make their own way. We should have relationships with as many foreigners (in power and out) to make intelligent decisions about providing support not troops.
This punditry, Monday morning quarterbacking has no place in serious political discourse. Obama did what the people who elected him wanted him to do. Private citizens can follow their dreams and go over and fight on the side they want to. Have you gone, Nicolas?
127
Time to dust off that junior high school history book and revisit France's contribution to the future US during the Revolutionary War. The idea that a country can successfully assist another in a war without getting their own hands dirty is wrong.
1
Technically their was a French Navy involved and I do believe also some French infantry at Yorktown. That said I do agree with the spirit of your post.
When are you going Nicolas?
So, we act. What is the goal? Cessation of hostilities? Secure borders for whom? Create Kurdistan, which Turkey, Syria, and Iraq will not like. Sunnis in one country and Shiites in another, will they separate that easily? Make secure places for Yazidis, Christians, Jews, Alawites? Will American citizens and congressional representatives support aggressive involvement in Syria? Does the conflict in Syria extend to the principals, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, Russia? If so, how are we to engage them, at the negotiation table or the field of battle?
8
Yes, Nicholas, a major blot on President Obama's legacy is not inserting the United States into the middle of a civil war in Syria and bogging us down in yet another lethal quagmire in the Middle East.
What an awful stain.
What an awful stain.
378
iIt's too bad that he already did. By funding and training militants in Syria he was already involved in the war. He was trying to topple the Assad Regime and when he started doing that the war started taking off. Let's not forget Libya and Qaddafi. President Obama's foreign policy is nothing to hail for.
1
Thank you
On the other hand, does not Obama see a quagmire of overlapping, murderous factions, none of which is sympathetic to a democratic solution, including a nuclear Russia ruled by a tyrant who is apparently determined to keep the monstrous al-Assad in power? What's a president to do in such a no-win situation? We have bungled the Mideast into disaster, beginning with Bush’s senseless invasion of Iraq. We broke it, and short of a massive and extended intervention, I don’t think we can fix it.
236
Actually it began with carving up the Ottoman Empire after World War One, but point taken.
4
The US did not break it - it damaged it but it was damaged a long time ago. Agreed the USA from the outset should never have gone near the place.
" including a nuclear Russia ruled by a tyrant"
The trouble is that the "tyrant" has a much higher approval rating in HIS country than either of the two candidates in OUR upcoming election.
I am sure Sanders would easily defeat Putin if an election were to be held in Vermont. But Putin is the president of Russia, not of Vermont and considering the mess which previous presidents of Russia created, Russian voters are rational to prefer Putin's tyranny.
Why is America so obsessed with choosing the governments of other countries? Have we STILL not seen the harm we do with our self-righteousness?
The trouble is that the "tyrant" has a much higher approval rating in HIS country than either of the two candidates in OUR upcoming election.
I am sure Sanders would easily defeat Putin if an election were to be held in Vermont. But Putin is the president of Russia, not of Vermont and considering the mess which previous presidents of Russia created, Russian voters are rational to prefer Putin's tyranny.
Why is America so obsessed with choosing the governments of other countries? Have we STILL not seen the harm we do with our self-righteousness?
4
President Obama's biggest mistake was making Hillary Clinton Secretary of State during his first term. After Bill Clinton's recent remarks, the Clintons should never be allowed anywhere near the White House again. Forget the Supreme Court, forget all else. They do not matter. These thoroughly corrupt, thoroughly ungrateful people have to go. This election is a very bad joke.
The Supreme Court may not matter to you, as it does not affect you in Canada, but it matters to Americans, thank you very much!
11
Anna, these are hostage holding points that Hillary supporters have been bringing up since the beginning of the election season. Meanwhile Merrick Garland is looking more and more like a guy who is graying exponentially.
2
I hope African Americans heard what Bill Clinton said and that they decide to stay home on election day.
Is not the root cause of the civil war in Syria is drought. The lack of rainfall has exacerbated all of the sectarian problems they have had for centuries. Last time I checked there is no way to make it rain. And from what with the prognosis of Global Warming the droughts are going to get worse.
So pray tell me how war and making more war on these people going to fix the drought? We could destroy all of Syria's war planes, we could start a war with Russia. But it will not make it rain.
So pray tell me how war and making more war on these people going to fix the drought? We could destroy all of Syria's war planes, we could start a war with Russia. But it will not make it rain.
6
Climate change is real. Sooner or later the gulf countries and the middle east will face desertification and acute water shortage as the earth warms by a few degrees each year, summers getting hotter and longer. Even birds are migrating north, why shouldn't humans? Since the beginning of mankind's journey, humans have migrated from Africa to populate the rest of the habitable planet.
2
One word, Mr. Kristoff...BALONEY!!! You are dreaming if you think anything that the United States could do would change the carnage in Syria. Afghanistan is a cakewalk compared to Syria, and how long has it been in shambles and not even close to a solution?
Is Syria a tragedy of epic proportions? Absolutely. Even all-out war against Russia, Syria and Iran would not solve the situation. The partitions created out of the Ottoman Empire after WWI laid the foundation for a hundred years and more of unrest. Is that Obama's fault? Is his legacy impuned because he didn't solve that problem?
Add to that the effects of culture and religion, inspiring vendetta's over hundreds of years, and you have a toxic mix making the Middle East unsafe at any speed. Wring your hands and gnash your teeth, but Obama's measured approach is the best option for the United States.
Is Syria a tragedy of epic proportions? Absolutely. Even all-out war against Russia, Syria and Iran would not solve the situation. The partitions created out of the Ottoman Empire after WWI laid the foundation for a hundred years and more of unrest. Is that Obama's fault? Is his legacy impuned because he didn't solve that problem?
Add to that the effects of culture and religion, inspiring vendetta's over hundreds of years, and you have a toxic mix making the Middle East unsafe at any speed. Wring your hands and gnash your teeth, but Obama's measured approach is the best option for the United States.
82
How many wars and other lethal, heartbreaking confrontations do we have to get into around the world?! South Sudan? Ukraine? Nigeria? Where/when does it end for the world's supposed policeman?! There are just too too many bad guys hurting innocent people. It's a global tragedy indeed, but a situation we neither have the stomach, young lives or resources to heal, if indeed our intervention could. Iraq and Afghanistan are cases in point. It's time for the rest of the world to step up, but until then we best remain on the sidelines, doing what we can from there. Am I cruel, heartless? Perhaps. I'm sorry.
96
We can certainly help the refugees who are fleeing the Holocaust.
3
Historically we have not intervened in revolutions in countries far from our shore. Sure, some think we should send our troops immediately to any hot spot and take control of the situation and inculcate the population with Judeo-Christian values. Look, the Middle East is a problem, but not more so than some of the atrocities that have occurred under the radar in Africa and Asia. We are not the policeman of the world. I wish the media would stop trying to create the case that we are. It is sad that children are suffering in Syria or elsewhere, but it is not Obama's legacy one way or the other because a bunch of rebel groups, who can't get their act coordinated, failed to overthrow the Assad government after all these years resulting in many innocent deaths. Stop the legacy crap please!
5
Act? Donald Trump wouldn't even allow them to come over as refugees!
6
Nicholas, the problem with your column, and with Charles Lister's plan, is that both ignore the Russian response to what they would view as American escalation in Syria. Rebel forces cannot be supplied by America without creating that perspective. The result of any such change in policy would ultimately be a confrontation with Russia directly, with the danger of that evolving to an actual shooting war between American and Russian forces directly. That could hardly be a viable plan.
The better plan would be to devise a way to let Russia declare victory and to then withdraw. That is not to say that America should just pick up and leave. The result of doing that would be unacceptable carnage. But that is happening anyway. Instead, it would be Obama's legacy for him to determine how to make Russian disengagement happen, such that the fighting stops and humanitarian aid can be delivered, and that whatever form Syria takes after cessation of hostilities can be defined.
The key to making this happen is to remove Assad. He can no longer remain and have the world still expect peace. America needs to take whatever action is required toward that end, and then present Russia with the fait accompli of Assad being gone. Only then can a viable successor be identified and a peace plan be established.
Hard times require hard decisions, and removing Assad is one of those. But there can be no peace with him still in power. He must go for there to be a lasting peace in Syria.
The better plan would be to devise a way to let Russia declare victory and to then withdraw. That is not to say that America should just pick up and leave. The result of doing that would be unacceptable carnage. But that is happening anyway. Instead, it would be Obama's legacy for him to determine how to make Russian disengagement happen, such that the fighting stops and humanitarian aid can be delivered, and that whatever form Syria takes after cessation of hostilities can be defined.
The key to making this happen is to remove Assad. He can no longer remain and have the world still expect peace. America needs to take whatever action is required toward that end, and then present Russia with the fait accompli of Assad being gone. Only then can a viable successor be identified and a peace plan be established.
Hard times require hard decisions, and removing Assad is one of those. But there can be no peace with him still in power. He must go for there to be a lasting peace in Syria.
81
I agreed until you got to the point of 'the key to making this happen is to remove Assad.' That's what's gotten us to this point; and forcing the idea that Assad must go is precisely the thing that will bring us closer to a shooting war with Russia. I can't see a scenario where we contrive some diplomatic out for Russia- and expect that they'll take their toys and go home. Nor will they likely agree 'after the fact' that Assad must go. I sure don't know what the answer is, but perhaps this is a civil war that needs to play out- regardless of whether the outcome is 'desirable' to either the U.S. or Russian interests.
29
Agreed. But Putin cannot withdraw totally. A Russian naval base on the Med is an absolute requirement for Putin. So your suggestions might include a guarantor of Russia's remaining at their base, where they've been for years.
Sooner or later it seems almost inevitable that there will be a confrontation with Russia. It might as well be now in before Putin's aggression becomes a fact on the ground that becomes so entrenched that a later confrontation will be even more dangerous.
Kristof: Did you happen to read the article in your paper by Simon and Stevenson? They also discuss the "Syrian conflict". Their position argues the opposite than you take.
Yes, it is disturbing, very disturbing, in fact, to see and hear about the horrific conditions in Aleppo.
However, I think it would be a lot more disturbing to see what would happen to the WORLD if we were to act more aggressively against Russia. The last thing the world needs is for the two superpowers to start tossing weapons of mass destruction around which is what is likely to happen if the USA were to act more aggressively.
And, I think that is the dilemma Obama finds himself in. I am not sure it is a "blot on Obama's legacy" and I imagine Obama is losing a lot of sleep over the situation.
However, you could get your wish if Trump or Hillary for that matter is elected. They will both be ready to push the button.
Yes, it is disturbing, very disturbing, in fact, to see and hear about the horrific conditions in Aleppo.
However, I think it would be a lot more disturbing to see what would happen to the WORLD if we were to act more aggressively against Russia. The last thing the world needs is for the two superpowers to start tossing weapons of mass destruction around which is what is likely to happen if the USA were to act more aggressively.
And, I think that is the dilemma Obama finds himself in. I am not sure it is a "blot on Obama's legacy" and I imagine Obama is losing a lot of sleep over the situation.
However, you could get your wish if Trump or Hillary for that matter is elected. They will both be ready to push the button.
2
What's happening in Syria is beyond awful, so I think Kristof and others in the media, who did not serve their country in uniform, but are very quick to tell others to go fight the good fight, should lead by example and head to Aleppo.
27
It is more than past time to create a no fly zone over Syria and enforce it against ALL countries.
The robust strategies of HRC Kerry and Petraeus that you ask us to consider is war Mr. Kristof you can call it what you want by it is war none the less.
Bombing runways wound't stop barrel bombings from happening as they are dropped from helicopters. And when bombing of runways fail to stop barrel bombings for obvious reasons the refrain would eventually become: it isn't working we must do something. We promised "Never Again"'
The NFZ worked in Kosovo and Kurdistan worked because the Russians weren't flying their planes there. We must ask ourselves are we committed to shooting Russian warplanes out of the sky in Syria and sparking WW3. i think anyone with a brain would say absolutely not.
But as you laud the NFZ it is nice of you to omit the extremism that rose out of Libya once Gadaffi's airforce was grounded and the Libyan army fought on without a major weapon against radical extremists. However a NFZ would cause us to see much worse horrors in Syria if the Jihadis were able to get into areas where the Alawites and Christians live and i'd suspect Kristof and the 'liberal' interventionists would again call on us again to Do Something.
Our heart strings have been played by interventionists for too long. And to be frank it's time for us to stop dancing. They only see ideas for intervention and nothing beyond it. America isn't ready for invasion, occupation, and, most frighteningly, war with the Russians
Bombing runways wound't stop barrel bombings from happening as they are dropped from helicopters. And when bombing of runways fail to stop barrel bombings for obvious reasons the refrain would eventually become: it isn't working we must do something. We promised "Never Again"'
The NFZ worked in Kosovo and Kurdistan worked because the Russians weren't flying their planes there. We must ask ourselves are we committed to shooting Russian warplanes out of the sky in Syria and sparking WW3. i think anyone with a brain would say absolutely not.
But as you laud the NFZ it is nice of you to omit the extremism that rose out of Libya once Gadaffi's airforce was grounded and the Libyan army fought on without a major weapon against radical extremists. However a NFZ would cause us to see much worse horrors in Syria if the Jihadis were able to get into areas where the Alawites and Christians live and i'd suspect Kristof and the 'liberal' interventionists would again call on us again to Do Something.
Our heart strings have been played by interventionists for too long. And to be frank it's time for us to stop dancing. They only see ideas for intervention and nothing beyond it. America isn't ready for invasion, occupation, and, most frighteningly, war with the Russians
19
Let me get this straight: Nation Building- NO. YES, Perhaps, Never- Depends. U.S.A. Master of the Universe. Obama- King, President of the U.S. [and Syria]. Got it Nicholas.
3
Please do not take the Freidman path. Watch what you wish for you may get it.
2
There just isn't much we can do here except a full scale invasion with hundreds of thousands of troops. Occupy the country after we get rid of one leader and lord knows who would replace him. Go up against the Russians and the Iranians who feel the best way to end this is to just support Assad, at least till the country is stable. And you know what they are probably right. All the things Kristof brings up we are either doing it to some extent, or just wouldn't mean anything. Kristof must know that. Kerry is working very hard with this and just keeps hitting a brick wall. Maybe as Mrs Clinton suggests we could set up some safe areas where refugees can go. We cannot threaten Russia about a no fly zone. Where would that lead too? What rebels are we supposed to support? It's the same problems there have always been. Personally I think we should stop the constant bombing and work out of Iraq. If we have something certain (as far as ISIS ), than act on it. But I don't know the complete story of what's going on there. We just sent another few thousand troops back to Iraq. What is there 10,000 troops there now? There is not much news or information from these conflicts for a host of reasons. It is so unfair to blame Obama for the horrors of Syria. Paralysis ?? I don't think that's right at all.
6
One way or another, one has to agree to be governed to live at peace.
2
You're way off-base on this one, Nick. President Obama is not suffering from "paralysis" and his reluctance to attack the Syrian government forces is neither a mistake nor a "huge blot on his legacy." Far from it.
Obama has weighed the options and, based on the disasters resulting from American military involvement in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, is very sanely avoiding plunging America into another deadly failed war with potentially no good outcome. And American military involvement carries the risk of beginning a new world war. That's not a fantasy, but a likely outcome of our military involvement in a dense conflict when it would be difficult if not impossible to avoid hitting the Russians.
Consider that Russia has both air and naval bases in Syria which it means to hold onto and has integrated its military efforts into those of Killer Assad, who over-reacted to peaceful protests for liberalization by killing hundreds of thousands of his own people.
If we rush madly into Syria we run the risk of finding ourselves at war with Russia and also its allies of convenience, which include Hezbollah and Iran. Such a conflagration would spill into Lebanon and Turkey, probably Israel as well. Add NATO into the mix and we're looking at the loss of thousands of American troops, trillions of dollars and a decade or more of bloody turbulence on a gigantic scale, with no end game other than madness.
Be careful what you wish for.
Obama has weighed the options and, based on the disasters resulting from American military involvement in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, is very sanely avoiding plunging America into another deadly failed war with potentially no good outcome. And American military involvement carries the risk of beginning a new world war. That's not a fantasy, but a likely outcome of our military involvement in a dense conflict when it would be difficult if not impossible to avoid hitting the Russians.
Consider that Russia has both air and naval bases in Syria which it means to hold onto and has integrated its military efforts into those of Killer Assad, who over-reacted to peaceful protests for liberalization by killing hundreds of thousands of his own people.
If we rush madly into Syria we run the risk of finding ourselves at war with Russia and also its allies of convenience, which include Hezbollah and Iran. Such a conflagration would spill into Lebanon and Turkey, probably Israel as well. Add NATO into the mix and we're looking at the loss of thousands of American troops, trillions of dollars and a decade or more of bloody turbulence on a gigantic scale, with no end game other than madness.
Be careful what you wish for.
42
Cheap exploitation of children and emotions. If Obama had led us into action he would have easily and rightly accused of leading us into another war with no solution.
67
Viet Namese mortaring of the runways was merely an annoyance. Permanent crews repaired damage immediately with steel nets thrown over the holes with some back fill under them. Meanwhile other crews were repairing the older holes. Planes flew in and out with little interruption.
6
Every time I see another photo of a Syrian or refugee child dead or in shock it deeply upsets me. Something does need to be done, but it needs to be done in the context of tactics that will provide some chance of immediate civilian relief and a strategy that will not result in yet another compounding of the regions deep problems. Starting with the Europeans during the colonial expansion and then the US post WW II the West has not had any policy that was more than protecting oil and Israel and keeping Turkey as a NATO ally. All the chickens are now coming home to roost and we have nothing but politically expedient plans with which to manage the issues. I am in despair.
2
Kristof should be reminded, Obama was elected twice, to get us out of war.
33
Better late than never?
I was on board for going in when Assad crossed the red line w chemical weapons.
Sadly and very unfortunately it's too late now,
Timing is everything and the US always thinks we have the luxury to discuss policy endlessly and then implement tactics or strategy long after their expiration date. This is classic hubris. A new policy that punishes Putin and focuses on refugee support and aid needs facilitated design and implementation. The luxury of ample time doesn't exist and we've lost the high ground militarily.
Another commenter mentioned that the Russians are bringing in their most advanced anti aircraft system as we speak. Cratering the runways is probably no longer feasible if that is the case.
I was on board for going in when Assad crossed the red line w chemical weapons.
Sadly and very unfortunately it's too late now,
Timing is everything and the US always thinks we have the luxury to discuss policy endlessly and then implement tactics or strategy long after their expiration date. This is classic hubris. A new policy that punishes Putin and focuses on refugee support and aid needs facilitated design and implementation. The luxury of ample time doesn't exist and we've lost the high ground militarily.
Another commenter mentioned that the Russians are bringing in their most advanced anti aircraft system as we speak. Cratering the runways is probably no longer feasible if that is the case.
3
Mr. Kristof, this is cheap and mean-spirited, using a mere girl to illustrate the horror of Syria. There isn't a whole lot that President Obama can do about it except to exit office with a growing line of American men and women in uniform patrolling the desert sands in a country that doesn't want us there. In addition, we would hazard the risk of direct confrontation with Russia as one president leaves and other enters. I don't know about you but Hillary Clinton's election is not quite in the bag. Do you want to think about Donald Trump yawning about Syria? Or essentially re-creating another Vietnam?
Mr. Kristof, you've beaten this Syrian drum for a long time. We get it that you hold President Obama personally responsible for the Syrian nightmare. Look, it's not our problem. Why not write a column or two, very soon please, telling us how W and Cheney thought it such a great idea to nation-build on a lunar landscape of despair and internecine entanglements due solely to religion, or at least its interpretation and practice. Syria is not the domino theory that lured LBJ into the jungles and tributaries of Southeast Asia to our eternal cost. And yet you counsel us, in this fraught election season, to hazard another go?
A complete, absolute and total ignoramus is poised to become No. 45; your counsel is that we should present him with the priceless gift of decision in Syria? To be used by Putin?
Mr. Kristof, I'm surprised that you would use children like this. I'm appalled.
Mr. Kristof, you've beaten this Syrian drum for a long time. We get it that you hold President Obama personally responsible for the Syrian nightmare. Look, it's not our problem. Why not write a column or two, very soon please, telling us how W and Cheney thought it such a great idea to nation-build on a lunar landscape of despair and internecine entanglements due solely to religion, or at least its interpretation and practice. Syria is not the domino theory that lured LBJ into the jungles and tributaries of Southeast Asia to our eternal cost. And yet you counsel us, in this fraught election season, to hazard another go?
A complete, absolute and total ignoramus is poised to become No. 45; your counsel is that we should present him with the priceless gift of decision in Syria? To be used by Putin?
Mr. Kristof, I'm surprised that you would use children like this. I'm appalled.
238
@ soxared - Soxared, someone must speak for the Syrian people and now that we live in the twitter era, for better or worse-mostly worse, why not listen to Bana and try, just try to imagine her situation and that of millions of trapped Syrians.
Ken, a few above you, thinks that the worst part of the Syrian crisis is that Germany, Sweden, and other countries have to take in as many asylum seekers as they think they can manage.
He, and perhaps you, need to think a bit more carefully about Bana. The worst part of the Syrian crisis is the killing of civilians - period.
I will probably meet several Syrian asylum seekers this afternoon at the Red Cross. Few if any want to talk about the family members, friends, and homes they have lost and we would never ask them. So Bana is telling you and perhaps you could listen and contribute to some worthy group such as MSF-Doctors without borders.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
Ken, a few above you, thinks that the worst part of the Syrian crisis is that Germany, Sweden, and other countries have to take in as many asylum seekers as they think they can manage.
He, and perhaps you, need to think a bit more carefully about Bana. The worst part of the Syrian crisis is the killing of civilians - period.
I will probably meet several Syrian asylum seekers this afternoon at the Red Cross. Few if any want to talk about the family members, friends, and homes they have lost and we would never ask them. So Bana is telling you and perhaps you could listen and contribute to some worthy group such as MSF-Doctors without borders.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
To add to this, last November I had dinner with a couple from Syria. Both husband & wife are highly educated. Both husband and wife still have family living in Syria. During the conversations at dinner, it became evident from listing to these two people that one needs a "Play Bill" to know who the fighters are. Next the "Play Bill" has to indicate who hates who.
Towards the end of dinner, I made a general observation about the Middle East. Middle East countries/people don't like America! But Middle East people want America to come in and kill of the current leader so that they can be the "new leader" and receive "yuge" American $$$$. Once the overthrow is completed, the cycle is repeated.
The Syrian couple said that my observation was not incorrect. So, Obama is right by not getting involved in Syria, a loosing cause for America.
Towards the end of dinner, I made a general observation about the Middle East. Middle East countries/people don't like America! But Middle East people want America to come in and kill of the current leader so that they can be the "new leader" and receive "yuge" American $$$$. Once the overthrow is completed, the cycle is repeated.
The Syrian couple said that my observation was not incorrect. So, Obama is right by not getting involved in Syria, a loosing cause for America.
3
Larry,
So, in hindsight, do you believe toppling Sadam Husein was a good or bad idea? Much like Assad, he was an oppressive dictator that mass killed his own people. However, now that he's gone, look how emboldened Iran has become. Would Iran ever have considered going after nukes if he were still in charge. I'm not personally in favor of either outcome, just pointing out that all decisions result in unwanted consequences. Sometimes, there just aren't good options.
So, in hindsight, do you believe toppling Sadam Husein was a good or bad idea? Much like Assad, he was an oppressive dictator that mass killed his own people. However, now that he's gone, look how emboldened Iran has become. Would Iran ever have considered going after nukes if he were still in charge. I'm not personally in favor of either outcome, just pointing out that all decisions result in unwanted consequences. Sometimes, there just aren't good options.
1
"We must do something! This is something. Therefore we must do this!"
That is the logic that has led to, perhaps, millions of deaths in the last 100 years. Cratering runways, enforcing no-fly zones, sound like innocent ways of protecting people - but they aren't. Remember Libya.
I'm no supporter of Assad but in the present situation, with almost unlimited support from his allies, I genuinely think the Syrian people will be better off with the tyrant victorious than with a long(er) war followed by years of fighting and the near certain outcome of extreme Islamist control over at least a large part of the country.
When "We must do something" means killing more people, then I'm glad that there is one leader in the West reluctant to do it.
That is the logic that has led to, perhaps, millions of deaths in the last 100 years. Cratering runways, enforcing no-fly zones, sound like innocent ways of protecting people - but they aren't. Remember Libya.
I'm no supporter of Assad but in the present situation, with almost unlimited support from his allies, I genuinely think the Syrian people will be better off with the tyrant victorious than with a long(er) war followed by years of fighting and the near certain outcome of extreme Islamist control over at least a large part of the country.
When "We must do something" means killing more people, then I'm glad that there is one leader in the West reluctant to do it.
146
If we supported the evil Assad from the beginning 300,000Syrians would be alive today.
Regime change will occur peacefully right here in USA beginning 11/8/16. Middle East regime change leads to chaos.
Regime change will occur peacefully right here in USA beginning 11/8/16. Middle East regime change leads to chaos.
2
Perhaps the most powerful legacy of the Cheney-Bush administration debacle is that the American public has no stomach for military intervention and has a deaf ear toward anything going on in the Middle East and South Asia.
I don't think Obama should get all the blame for our failure to effectively act in Syria. Congress has been stunningly silent on all things Middle East other than snubbing Obama by inviting Netanyahu to speak. All those military hawks in the Republican majorities in both houses of Congress have silently sat on their hands and let the carnage continue rather that join the President in any military intervention in Syria. The Democratic minority has been election-year quiet as well.
Shame on them all. Shame on us all.
I don't think Obama should get all the blame for our failure to effectively act in Syria. Congress has been stunningly silent on all things Middle East other than snubbing Obama by inviting Netanyahu to speak. All those military hawks in the Republican majorities in both houses of Congress have silently sat on their hands and let the carnage continue rather that join the President in any military intervention in Syria. The Democratic minority has been election-year quiet as well.
Shame on them all. Shame on us all.
4
Obama understands one thing that people like Kristof and myself don't have to consider. Obama is a constitutional scholar and the concept of sovereignty demands that your oversight of what happens within your borders respects other nations oversight of what happens within their borders.
It is 2016 not 1994 and much to the chagrin of America much has happened since NAFTA was signed. In our interconnected world trade agreements and international agreements now can demand that nations can demand their trade or social partners have laws that supersede national sovereignty.
President Obama is President of a country that still believes it own sovereignty is paramount and therein lies the rub.
For nations like Canada where citizens believe partnerships demand the rights of citizens as much as the rights of commerce, interference in places like Syria seems a no brainer but for the USofA interference in Syria demands a suspension in the belief of the supremacy of national sovereignty.
Canada provides the perfect example of what I am talking about in its trade negotiation with China. Canada is demanding China guarantees its worker certain rights and privileges in exchange for a trade agreement. China says agreeing to such condition demands it surrender its sovereignty. I might assume that Kristoff and myself are on Canada's side on this issue but the political reality for Obama is that the USA is is politically in China's corner.
It is 2016 not 1994 and much to the chagrin of America much has happened since NAFTA was signed. In our interconnected world trade agreements and international agreements now can demand that nations can demand their trade or social partners have laws that supersede national sovereignty.
President Obama is President of a country that still believes it own sovereignty is paramount and therein lies the rub.
For nations like Canada where citizens believe partnerships demand the rights of citizens as much as the rights of commerce, interference in places like Syria seems a no brainer but for the USofA interference in Syria demands a suspension in the belief of the supremacy of national sovereignty.
Canada provides the perfect example of what I am talking about in its trade negotiation with China. Canada is demanding China guarantees its worker certain rights and privileges in exchange for a trade agreement. China says agreeing to such condition demands it surrender its sovereignty. I might assume that Kristoff and myself are on Canada's side on this issue but the political reality for Obama is that the USA is is politically in China's corner.
2
I wonder how your opinion of Obama and national sovereignty are reconciled to his use of drones to enforce our interests in other countries? Or perhaps reconcile our actions in Libya?
It is not national sovereignty that drives Obama's policy it is the number of Americans who might die that drives his policy. "Lead from behind" is the optimal phrase. He does not want to risk American lives but even he finds that American lives are lost even as he works relentlessly against any loss.
The real problem is that when a line is actually drawn in the sand which we will defend, that the enemy will think we are just blowing hot air as usual and World War III will start.
It is not national sovereignty that drives Obama's policy it is the number of Americans who might die that drives his policy. "Lead from behind" is the optimal phrase. He does not want to risk American lives but even he finds that American lives are lost even as he works relentlessly against any loss.
The real problem is that when a line is actually drawn in the sand which we will defend, that the enemy will think we are just blowing hot air as usual and World War III will start.
1
Incredibly heartbreaking... We must do something. If this isn't worth fighting for than what is? Our hearts and prayers arece you Bana. God bless!
1
Are we afraid of Russia? Is that why we won't act?
1
The worst part of the Syria crisis is that it's created a flood of Syrian refugees into Europe. I'm very worried about the medium and long term impacts of that. I think that the next president should use some kind air power to at least make it safe to send all of those refugees back to Syria.
2
@ Ken New York - I believe we who live here (Sweden has taken in more Syrians per capita than any other European country but of course far fewer than countries like Jordan) believe that the worst part of the Syrian crisis is the death of 100s of 1000s of Syrians and the reduction of their cities to rubble.
Doing what can be done for the 180,000 asylum seekers who came here in 2015 pales in comparison to the death toll. This afternoon I will probably talk with several fairly new arrivals from Syria who will be at Träna svenska at the Red Cross. Almost every such individual I meet has lost family members and friends and perhaps their home or apartment as well. None of them would agree with you.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
Doing what can be done for the 180,000 asylum seekers who came here in 2015 pales in comparison to the death toll. This afternoon I will probably talk with several fairly new arrivals from Syria who will be at Träna svenska at the Red Cross. Almost every such individual I meet has lost family members and friends and perhaps their home or apartment as well. None of them would agree with you.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
4
The problem with “cratering” runways or many or the other stop gap measures short of boots on the ground is they only work for a limited time. Where there is a will there is a way, and that leads to an unintended escalation. If your measures don’t work or cease working your military, and the policy gets discredited and described as half-hearted and then the military appears to lack credibility.
Syria is a tragedy, but it is decidedly not one of our making. Sometimes the better response is no response, as hard as that is to accept in the face of suffering.
Syria is a tragedy, but it is decidedly not one of our making. Sometimes the better response is no response, as hard as that is to accept in the face of suffering.
33
Give it up Nick, he's not coming.
18
Perhaps, if we just start bombing the regime forces more, Mr. Kristof will stop wringing his hands in public every week. That in itself might be a public good. He stops his holier-than-thou nonsense, and we get to see how good a Monday morning QB he actually is.
3
I would remind all readers that "on the internet nobody knows you're a dog."
Once upon a time a Gay Girl in Damascus went missing. It turned out that she was not gay, living in Damascus, or a girl. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/gay-girl-in-damascus-bl...
That said I'd do wish that humanity could find a way to leave innocents out of their wars, but we can't. And we can't save them from war zones. Our best bet is to try to prevent war, not engage in them.
Once upon a time a Gay Girl in Damascus went missing. It turned out that she was not gay, living in Damascus, or a girl. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/gay-girl-in-damascus-bl...
That said I'd do wish that humanity could find a way to leave innocents out of their wars, but we can't. And we can't save them from war zones. Our best bet is to try to prevent war, not engage in them.
29
You make it sound like the US alone is in charge of policing the world and saving mankind from all evils and we can do all this by pushing buttons, never sending in our people. Has not Iraq taught you anything. If we are going to get involved we have to go 100% and then stay 100% until the end. I believe our present course is OK.
51
Our follies in Iraq (and countless other places) clearly show that our intervention can do far more harm than good; to those we support and to the soldiers we sacrifice. Obama didn't 'fail to respond', he rightly refused to commit our soldiers to a suicide mission.
172
The situation is horrific in Syria, and we all ache to do something for the people caught in the crossfire. This is why we need to do everything in our power to avert wars. [Cue tape on who is to blame for the wars in the Middle East.]
Nevertheless, the "Do something, Do anything" approach that Kristof is advocating is very dangerous. Cratering runways is hardly a solution to a very deep and complex problem.
Nations have nearly bankrupted themselves trying to get people in the Middle East to shape up and behave (Rome, Italy, Britain, and France come to mind). They go in with intentions of straightening things out, and they find themselves trapped in quagmires in which everybody blames and hates them.
I don't see this mess as a blot on Obama. Middle East wars existed long before he was president and will probably exist long afterward. I don't think he could have done much differently without getting the U.S. trapped in yet another war. The blot is on humanity for letting dictators put their own interests ahead of their people's interests.
Nevertheless, the "Do something, Do anything" approach that Kristof is advocating is very dangerous. Cratering runways is hardly a solution to a very deep and complex problem.
Nations have nearly bankrupted themselves trying to get people in the Middle East to shape up and behave (Rome, Italy, Britain, and France come to mind). They go in with intentions of straightening things out, and they find themselves trapped in quagmires in which everybody blames and hates them.
I don't see this mess as a blot on Obama. Middle East wars existed long before he was president and will probably exist long afterward. I don't think he could have done much differently without getting the U.S. trapped in yet another war. The blot is on humanity for letting dictators put their own interests ahead of their people's interests.
61
Obama has made the calculation that the political cost and the cost to what he wants his 'reputation' to be of 10 or 20 American casualties in Syria would be worse than the cost of 500,000 Syrian lives and 3 million refugees. How horribly sad that this man won a Nobel Peace Prize for doing no more than showing up for pictures - and showing up for pictures is all that he has done in Syria.
3
"For those of us who generally admire President Obama as a man of principle, it is wrenching to watch his paralysis. As I see it, Syria has been his worst mistake, a huge blot on his legacy."
His worst mistake was not going after the Banksters and temporarily nationalizing the large financial institutions while breaking them up. His next worst is to listen to the arm chair war mongers like yourself and not ending the wars he inherited.
His worst mistake was not going after the Banksters and temporarily nationalizing the large financial institutions while breaking them up. His next worst is to listen to the arm chair war mongers like yourself and not ending the wars he inherited.
149