As an outlet for things Evolve-related, I try to avoid foreign policy on this blog (there being not much of anything related to foreign policy in Evolve). However, there has been a fair amount of news discussion regarding Syria and the US and UN response to Syria’s policy of killing all manner of people who disagree with the country’s leaders, and that discussion is something that Ethan and Chuck would have taken up in their salon discussions during Gene Camp’s idle time in Evolve, Part 3: Emergent Order. Thus my belief that this post is appropriate.

Charles K of the Washington Post has an excellent article on the subject. The entire article is well crafted and worthy of a full read. Here is a key excerpt that highlights crystal clear logic on the Syria topic:

“Now, there’s an argument to be made that we do not have a duty to protect. That foreign policy is not social work. That you risk American lives only when national security and/or strategic interests are at stake, not merely to satisfy the humanitarian impulses of some of our leaders.

But Obama does not make this argument. On the contrary. He goes to the Holocaust Museum to commit himself and his country to defend the innocent, to affirm the moral imperative of rescue. And then does nothing of any consequence.”

Here is UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon’s response to recent killings:

“Ban “remains deeply troubled by the continued presence of heavy weapons, military equipment and army personnel in population centres, as reported by United Nations Military Observers,” said a UN statement.

This was “in contravention of the Syrian government’s commitments to withdraw its troops and heavy weapons from these areas,” he said, demanding Damascus “comply with its commitments without delay.”

In both cases we see hypocrisy and abject failure of leadership – the failure of Obama and Moon. It – the failure and hypocrisy – is entirely brought on by oneself: in either case Obama or Moon could make the case for staying out of Syria’s affairs (see the Charles K quote and article). But neither do. Both propose doing something. Any yet neither actually does anything. Utter failure.

-JD Cross