Policy Contradictions on Syria
Published in Süddeutsche Zeitung
(Germany) on 11 September 2013
by Nicolas Richter (link to
original)
America no longer wants to be the world's policeman. Obama's recent speech made that point clear. But he has not yet resolved the contradictions: If 100,000 Syrians die by gunfire, America couldn't care less. But if 1,000 die by poison gas, America will attack.
A speech by the U.S. president to the American public is usually considered a special event. Seen in that light, Obama probably should not have delivered his Syrian speech last Tuesday. The speech was smart and sophisticated, but the message was too complicated for the format: I actually hate war but a small one is now necessary — or maybe not necessary because I want to make another try for a diplomatic solution.
The rhetorical device that is the major speech wears out quickly. Obama may soon find himself on the losing end of a disagreement over the minor points in a U.N. resolution. And if no agreement is reached? Is a military strike more likely then than it is now? And to which rhetorical device will Obama then turn in an attempt to change his war-weary nation's mind?
Obama made one remaining point: The U.S. doesn't want to continue being the world's policeman. If it has to get involved anywhere in the world, then it will be only when it's possible to send the greatest moral message with the least effort. Obama has seldom expressed his foreign policy cost-benefit doctrine as succinctly as that.
But he has yet to resolve the contradictions: If 100,000 Syrians are killed by bullets America couldn't care less; but if 1,000 die by being gassed America will attack. Despots might interpret Obama's words to mean they're free to kill as many innocents as they want, just make sure it's done with bullets and grenades.
A speech by the U.S. president to the American public is usually considered a special event. Seen in that light, Obama probably should not have delivered his Syrian speech last Tuesday. The speech was smart and sophisticated, but the message was too complicated for the format: I actually hate war but a small one is now necessary — or maybe not necessary because I want to make another try for a diplomatic solution.
The rhetorical device that is the major speech wears out quickly. Obama may soon find himself on the losing end of a disagreement over the minor points in a U.N. resolution. And if no agreement is reached? Is a military strike more likely then than it is now? And to which rhetorical device will Obama then turn in an attempt to change his war-weary nation's mind?
Obama made one remaining point: The U.S. doesn't want to continue being the world's policeman. If it has to get involved anywhere in the world, then it will be only when it's possible to send the greatest moral message with the least effort. Obama has seldom expressed his foreign policy cost-benefit doctrine as succinctly as that.
But he has yet to resolve the contradictions: If 100,000 Syrians are killed by bullets America couldn't care less; but if 1,000 die by being gassed America will attack. Despots might interpret Obama's words to mean they're free to kill as many innocents as they want, just make sure it's done with bullets and grenades.