24 January, 2013

Lynch on choices about Syria, then and now

The Syria debate, continued:
My column last week arguing that American intervention would probably not have
helped Syria has generated a lot of discussion, both positive and negative. Some of the discussion has been productive and useful, even if some has been of the predictably low caliber which anyone who
has has been immersed in the Syria debate over the last two years would
regrettably expect. Robin Yassin-Kassab published a particularly thoughtful
rebuttal yesterday "Fund Syria's Moderates" on FP, which offers a good opportunity to respond to
some of the major objections which have been circulating. [[BREAK]]

It's easy to empathize with the anger of
people horrified by the carnage and desperate to see something done about it. But as
satisfying as moral outrage might be
, it's not enough and is rarely a guide to good policy. For a policy to effectively respond to moral horrors, it has to have a reasonable chance of actually working. The massive human suffering and the deterioriating conditions in Syria do compel greater efforts. But they do not compel misguided actions which would ultimately have little effect or make things worse at great cost.