The Shame of Syria

Syria has finally made it to the front pages of the main stream media. Only 15 months after the killing began, both the newspapers and the TV networks have started to cover the ongoing human disaster in that country. Even president Obama and the Obamacrats are discussing the situation with more than passing interest. Of course, Obama has made clear that the USA will not get involved in any military action. Indeed, so far the strongest thing we have done is to expel the Syrian ambassador after only 12,000 civilian deaths at the hands of the Assad regime. Oh, they must be shaking in Damascus.

The truth is that Obama's conduct with regard to Syria is shameful. Had America taken a strong stand a year ago against the death squads that Assad set on his own people, there might have been a different outcome. Just imagine if Obama had spent even one tenth the effort to stop the slaughter that he put in for fund raising for his re-election effort. There was no need for American military involvement; in the early days of the killing a major diplomatic push might well have been enough. Of course, there is also the moral component to this whole mess. The United States got involved in fighting in Libya when many, many fewer civilians were killed. Obama told the world how we would not stand idly by and watch as a government killed its people. Then, a few months later in a country in the same part of the world, Obama stood idly by and watched as a government killed its people. So much for honesty. In fact, if you ever want to cry and laugh at the same time, try listening to the White House spokesman explain why Libya and Syria were different. The clearest answer seems to be that Libya has an L in its name while Syria has an S.

The reality, of course, is that polls show that Americans do not want any involvement in Syria and Obama is only 5 months from the election. Once again, politics triumphs over morality.