Reblogged: Obama Administration’s Foreign Policy: Intentionally Inef

[Blog Auto Feed Retired]

What is the Obama administration’s mission in Syria? Secretary of State John Kerry recently spelled it out:

We will be able to hold Bashar al-Assad accountable without engaging in troops on the ground or any other prolonged kind of effort in a very limited, very targeted, short-term effort that degrades his capacity to deliver chemical weapons without assuming responsibility for Syria’s civil war. That is exactly what we are talking about doing—[an] unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.

In other words, the purpose of the Obama administration’s proposed involvement in Syria—something that at a minimum will cost America substantial resources and put the lives of U.S. soldiers at risk—is not to topple the brutal Assad regime, not to prevent the deaths of civilians, and not to further America’s interests in the region. The purpose—if it can be called that—is to put on an empty military show in response to Assad purportedly crossing an arbitrarily drawn “red line” regarding the means by which he slaughters Syrians.

Unfortunately, given the Obama administration’s general approach to foreign policy, the smallness and ineffectiveness of the proposed Syria strike is all too believable.

Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard.

Related:

• “No Substitute for Victory”—The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism
• Assad’s “Moral Obscenity” Does Not Justify Obscenity of Sacrificial Military Intervention

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Link to Original

[Nicky]

In other words, the purpose of the Obama administration’s proposed involvement in Syria is not to topple the brutal Assad regime

That's right, the purpose of military intervention isn't to topple Assad, it's only to help topple him. The US isn't assuming responsibility for the opposition winning the war, this is merely a small scale intervention which will hopefully tilt the balance.

I'm not claiming that it will work, and that the opposition will end up winning. But I do think that unequivocally declaring that it won't is an unwarranted leap. And implying that the administration is purposefully inefficient (is working under the assumption that it won't work, and that Assad will win in the end) is just silly.

[aleph_1]

If you achieve no value, are your actions virtuous? Killing to uphold a principle achieves nothing tangable.