March 5, 2014
Netanyahu's inaction to Obama's provocations sends powerful message
Kerry, after apparent criticism by Schumer, seeks to allay skepticism on diplomacy
How to ruin a perfectly good kid in 10 simple steps
2014 Oscars played it safe, but was faith lost in the shuffle?
Apple joins Hobby Lobby in touting corporate values beyond profit
March 3, 2014
Alina Dain Sharon: In the Hebrew calendar, a leap year has extra month, not day
Latest Obama appointment to prove Prez set on emasculating so-called Israel Lobby
Jewish World Review
Sept. 5, 2013/ 30 Elul, 5773
The least bad option: Kill Assad
A. Barton Hinkle
There are many good reasons not to intervene in Syria.
First, contrary to what President Obama has said, the atrocities there present no security threat to the United States.
Second, U.S. intervention seems unlikely to do much good if by "good" one means a reduction in the suffering of innocents. Unless, of course, the U.S. decides to launch a full-scale invasion followed by lengthy occupation and democratization along the lines of what America imposed on the world after WWII. Who's up for that right now? Anyone? Didn't think so.
Third, and closely related to the previous reason: There are no evident good guys. It's not as though the Syrian conflict pits a brutal dictatorship against the equivalent of the American civil rights movement, circa 1963. The Syrian opposition is thick with al-Qaida, and one of its leaders recently denounced potential American military intervention as "satanic." Lovely.
So, no, the case for burning up a few million dollars' worth of Pentagon ordnance is far from open-and-shut.
Yet President Obama seems intent on doing something and likely would have by now, if half the country had not reminded him of what he said back in 2007: "The president does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Hence he is going to Congress first though he has not said he will abide by whatever Congress decides.
Assuming America takes action, what sort of action should it take to do what Obama believes it must do i.e., send a message to a dictator that the heinous crime of gassing hundreds of children to death must carry a price?
One option would be to destroy Assad's remaining stocks of chemical weapons. But those reportedly are located in civilian areas, which could lead to even more civilian deaths. Regardless, Assad could rebuild them soon enough.
Another option would be to take out some of the regime's military facilities. Assad isn't likely to lose much sleep over that.
We could decimate military personnel, which might cause Assad more heartburn but would involve the dubious prospect of butchering many young men who might not have done anything more than guard a supply depot. In a country where the consent of the governed is a sick joke, assigning guilt to all but those in the ruling elite is a sketchy proposition at best.
Assigning guilt to Assad, however, is emphatically not. There is no doubt whatsoever that he has massacred thousands of civilians in an effort to sustain a regime that as reports from Human Rights Watch and Freedom House make clear is sadistic beyond belief. If Assad is far from history's greatest monster, that is not owing to any lack of effort on his part.
So take him out.
The most obvious advantage of killing Assad is that it would do precisely what the president wants to do: send a message that certain crimes against humanity will meet with swift punishment. Indeed, extremely personal threats might be the only sort of message that can sway the world's despots who, by definition, lack any concern for the welfare of those they dominate. Assassination threatens the one and only thing a tyrant cares about: himself.
From an ethical point of view, assassination is vastly superior to bombing campaigns, which end up killing many civilians no matter how carefully they are targeted. And it is also vastly superior to ground campaigns, which slaughter a lot of military conscripts who bear little if any blame for the crimes of their superiors.
From a practical perspective, the case for threatening tyrants directly can point to at least one stellar success. Whatever else one thinks about the Iraq war, this much is true: U.S. forces dragged Saddam Hussein from his hidey-hole on Dec. 13, 2003. Six days later, Moammar Qaddafi announced that Libya would abandon all efforts at producing WMDs and long-range missiles. That was no coincidence.
True, killing Assad could have many unforeseen consequences. But the same can be said of any other form of military intervention. It also can be said of nonintervention. If the U.S. does decide to act in Syria, then vaporizing Assad would at least be the purest way to summon whatever unintended consequences lie in wait.
And, yes, the U.S. has a policy against assassination (last updated by Ronald Reagan, in Executive Order 12333). But President Obama already has explained why he has the legal authority to carry out extrajudicial killings of American citizens abroad. It would be absurd at this point for him to suggest noncitizen dictators deserve any better.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
A. Barton Hinkle is Deputy Editor of the Editorial Pages at Richmond Times-Dispatch
Comment by clicking here.
• 08/27/13: GOPers wrong ones to take on ObamaCare
• 08/08/13: Gas prices: What can the president do?
• 08/02/13: Chris Christie pulls a Dowd
• 07/29/13: Should Click and Clack wind up in the clink?
• 07/08/13: Commit any felonies lately?
• 06/18/13: Citizens and the State: the problem is bigger than you think
• 06/06/13: Political derangement threatens basic rights
• 05/30/13: Should we fear ex-Marine --- or those who detained him?
• 05/23/13: Professor of Constitution goes to war against it
• 05/23/13: REVEALED: IRS letter to tea party groups
• 05/15/13: Today on NPR: The smothering tax burden
• 04/30/13: What does Boston say about diversity?
• 04/25/13: For some libs, 'courage' = agreeing with them
• 04/18/13: Utterly outraged by their president's callous betrayal
• 04/11/13: Cognitive dissonance on guns
• 04/04/13: Do unto others, but not unto us, say the media
• 04/01/13: Observations from the auto shop holding pen
• 03/14/13: The nation-building follies
• 03/12/13: Will the right come around on pot?
• 03/07/13: Another U.S. dupe falls for a dictator
• 02/28/13: How dare you say that here!
• 02/26/13: Eating Frito-Lay chips at gunpoint
• 02/20/13: Death Star petitions are just what we need
• 02/13/13: ObamaCare proves law correct --- deep down you knew it would
• 01/29/13: It's Time to Get Judgy About Incompetency
• 01/23/13: Look who's mocking fascist fear-mongering now
• 01/16/13: Only in Washington could you get away with referring to spending and tax increases as spending 'cuts'
• 01/09/13: Obama begins his second term, Bush's fourth
• 01/07/13: Who's Attacking the Constitution Now?
• 01/03/13: Why, historically, January is the perfect time to debate the filibuster
• 12/26/12: When libs devalue diversity
• 12/20/12: Mark Your Calendars
• 12/13/12: Gun control, ad infinitum
• 12/11/12: Fracking can help fix the CO2 problem
• 12/06/12: Let's open the door to lots more immigration
• 12/04/12: Who's watching the kids? Just about everyone
• 11/29/12: The Real Middle-Class Champion was Mocked and Opposed
• 11/26/12: It's time to cut a deal on the budget
• 11/20/12: The case for a carbon tax
• 11/15/12: Cue the hysterics. Reports of Democracy's Death Greatly Exaggerated
• 11/07/12: The $4,000 Trash Can: We need regulation, but not this much
• 10/23/12: The Ballad of Islamist Rage Boy
• 10/17/12: Undermining the values that enable people in poverty to escape it? Sadly, yes
• 10/11/12: How Much Is This Tax Cut Gonna Cost Me, Doc?
• 10/04/12: Warrantless spying skyrockets under Obama
• 08/20/12: The wrong side absolutely must not win
• 08/14/12: America was not built on dirt alone
• 08/02/12: Libs Discover Their Inner Cheney
• 07/30/12: Feds want to help you --- whether you want help or not
• 07/23/12: Barack Obama, Storyteller-in-Chief
• 07/23/12: Nation's worst outsourcer? You
• 07/19/12: Listen up, America: You need to knuckle under
• 07/12/12: Obama, Romney: As Different as Two Peas in a Pod
• 07/05/12: Are teenagers big children --- or little adults?
• 06/25/12: Minorities treated as mere numbers
• 06/21/12: Memo to the the Little Guy: Seemingly innocuous activity could bring the federal hammer down out of a clear blue sky
• 06/19/12: We mustn't let America be buffaloed
• 05/31/12: Drop and Give Uncle Sam 20
• 05/15/12: The feds would like to know if you enjoyed that video
• 05/03/12: Obama inspires: 'America --- Still Not as Bad Off as Venezuela!'
• 04/26/12: It's everyone's favorite time of year again
• 03/29/12: GOP disillusionment is a good thing
• 03/27/12: Just what America needs: more red tape
• 03/20/12: Nation wondering: what happening to language?
• 02/21/12: Culture warriors resort to propaganda
• 02/15/12: Step away from that cookie and grab some air
• 02/08/12: Lessons in heresy
• 02/01/12: Do We Really Need Pickle-Flavored Potato Chips?
• 01/11/12: Shut up, they explained
• 12/30/11: A Modest Proposal: Let's Ban All Sports!
• 12/26/11: A Christmas letter from the Obamas
• 02/24/11: Will the next Watson need us?
• 12/24/10: Here Are Some Good Gifts for People You Hate
• 06/15/10: The Presinator
• 05/26/10: More than equal
• 04/08/10: Angry Right Takes a Page From Angry Left but guess who is ugly?
• 02/16/10: Either Obama owes George W. Bush an apology, or he owes the rest of us a very good explanation for his about-face on wiretapping
• 02/03/10: Talkin' to us 'tards
• 01/27/10: I never thought I'd see the day when progressives would howl in ragebecause the Supreme Court said government should not ban books
• 01/07/10: Gun-Control Advocates Play Fast and Loose
• 12/31/09: Nearly everything progressives say about neoconservative interventionism abroad applies to their own preferred policies at home
© 2011, A. Barton Hinkle