iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Amb. Marc Ginsberg

GET UPDATES FROM Amb. Marc Ginsberg
 

Why Have Democrats Abandoned Syria?

Posted: 08/29/2012 4:52 pm

As their humanitarian plight grows more acute, the Syrian people deserve better from the Democratic Party and its elected leadership.

If Senator Edward M. Kennedy -- the conscience of the Democratic Party -- were alive today, he would be bellowing to the rafters on the floor of the U.S. Senate that America is acting embarrassingly indifferent to the humanitarian plight of the Syrian people.

I have experience enough to predict how Ted Kennedy would have reacted to the growing Syrian civilian humanitarian crisis. I served on his Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Refugees staff for 7 years and know Ted Kennedy cared about the Democratic Party and its foreign policy principles.

The Syrian people wouldn't know of these Democratic principles. Nor, for that matter, would the millions of young Arabs that President Obama addressed in Cairo in June, 2009, since they are not reflected in his Syrian policy. That is one reason why his support among Arabs has cratered.

Something has happened to us Democrats insofar as Syria is concerned.

Instead of leadership, the Obama Administration has served up a platter of empty promises and alibis. Instead of actively and expeditiously organizing a coalition of relief organizations to find the best ways to redress the terrible conditions confronting a Syrian population fleeing for their lives from the homes, White House policy on Syria is plain and simple: don't rock the boat, don't go near any policy that would draw the U.S. into any remote chance that a shot would be fired in our direction. Use the turmoil inside Syria as a justification not to act. Time does not seem to be the essence as the death toll and suffering mounts.

Evidently, providing much needed American leadership to alleviate the plight of Syrians could cost the president one vote, or so Chicago Obama campaign headquarters fears.

It is so ironic that nary an expression of serious angst emanates from Washington's Democratic think tanks on Syria calling on the Obama Administration to live up to the Party's best humanitarian principles.

When Libya's Gadaffi was merely threatening, I repeat, threatening, to bring harm to Benghazi's civilians, the outcry from the Obama Administration and its allies was deafening. Washington then couldn't do enough to avert the danger to Benghazi's civilians. The lack of any comparable drumbeat out of Democratic Congressional offices or our allies in the think tank world on Syria would suggest they were quietly "advised" by the White House to avoid placing the Administration in a politically difficult position. Syria, after all is not Libya, or so the White House has convinced itself of.

And if there has been a recent Senate hearing on Syria highlighting the humanitarian crisis and recommending a coherent, principled policy, it is a deep, dark secret.

Even when we offered to send "non-lethal" communications equipment it remained in storage for months, and the leadership of the Syrian opposition went public last week to the Washington Post on August 21, rebuking the Obama Administration for promising, but not delivering the offered assistance. Meanwhile, Administration spokesmen serve up assurances that the supply chain of non-lethal assistance is timely arriving at its intended destinations. This is inaccurate if the Syrian opposition and the U.S. media is to be believed.

The White House has also assured the media it is discreetly planning for a post-Assad Syria. The New York Times reported on August 5 that the State Department "... is considering positioning additional food and medical supplies in the region..." to cope with a POST ASSAD situation.

What if Assad doesn't abandon Damascus anytime soon and the fighting and dying go on and on? Are we going to continue to sit conveniently on the sidelines waiting by the ticker to send a "breaking news" alert that Assad has been overthrown before we decisively act? That's what it sounds like, and that was the inference conveyed to me by colleagues at the State Department last week.

That is patently unacceptable!

Today, the humanitarian and refugee crisis in Syria is growing more and more acute by the hour. Yet, Assad may be in power for one month, even five months, or, if the Russians and Iranians have their way, for a whole lot longer. Surely it cannot be that this White House will wait and wait and wait until Assad's eventual fall triggers a muscular American humanitarian relief policy that should be in place and operational whether or not Assad stays or leaves.

By consensus accounts emerging every day from international observers, close to 25,000 Syrians have died, over 150,000 are missing or have been made refugees, and untold tens of thousands are homeless, without food or medicine at the mercy of Assad's artillery or criminal elements. Turkey, no longer able to cope with the Syrian refugee exodus, shut down its border crossings, stranding thousands of fleeing Syrians inside Syria under barrage from Assad's helicopter gunships. Jordan faces a similar challenge. What is to become of these Syrians holed up inside Syria without food, medicine or shelter? Are they to die from starvation or lack of water, or be gunned down by Assad's forces?

This is the cruel Syrian reality today... not an over-exaggerated, naïve, idealistic plea. The Obama Administration can do so much more without resorting to yet another convenient excuse for inaction.

I do not and never have advocated boots on the ground. I know the stakes and the consequences. Rather, I am advocating for angels from the air.

Why cannot the Obama Administration get off its dime and show some valor by doing what is right and lead the international community into organizing a credible humanitarian land and air lift under the flag of the neutral United Nations or Muslim Red Crescent Society today before it is too late? What are the Russians or Syrians going to do in the face of a determined coalition expediting humanitarian relief supplies? Shoot down a Red Crescent or U.N.-sponsored airlift? If this relief operation requires armed escorts, well, then, show leadership and provide the logistical and communications support to the Saudis and Qataris to enable them to provide the necessary military support like they did in Libya. How many Americans died protecting the citizens of Benghazi when we provided the leadership and support without placing ourselves on the front firing lines?

Where there is a will there is a way!

History will not kindly judge the Democratic Party foreign policy establishment for turning its back on the plight of the Syrian people. Ever since the revolt against the Assad regime commenced in March, 2011, the abdication of Democratic Party humanitarian DNA toward Syria is Exhibit A for a foreign policy dictated by political expediency rather than determination and resolve.

This is an appropriate occasion to remind my colleagues in this good Administration that President Obama has a duty and responsibility to stand by and actively honor the foreign policy principles of our Democratic Party. We who served in previous Democratic campaigns and Democratic administrations were inspired by these humanitarian principles and they moved us to act in the Middle East, in South Asia, in Vietnam and in Bosnia. The upcoming Democratic Party Convention provides the President a platform to send a strong message to the Syrian people that the U.S. will not abandon them.

I know what Ted Kennedy would be doing today to help the Syrian people. He would be holding hearings in the U.S. Senate to highlight the growing humanitarian catastrophe confronting every Syrian civilian -- Sunni, Shiite, Christian and any sect in between. His hearings would shine a spotlight on the need for greater humanitarian aid to Syrians and the extreme violations of human rights Syrian civilians face every hour of every day. He would have representatives of international organizations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees testify so the world would hear the terrible refugee crisis that has emerged on Syria's borders and come up with credible steps to avert a further crisis. He would have reporters and representatives of humanitarian relief organizations provide first-hand accounts of the Syrian humanitarian crisis to make sure the American people and the international community understood the true picture of what was occurring inside Syria.

Most of all, Ted Kennedy would be orchestrating an appropriate U.S. response to the Syrian crisis from the American people consistent with our limitations, but mindful of who we are and what we stand for.

Certainly, for all Edward Kennedy and his brothers stood for, this White House should and can do no less.

 

Follow Amb. Marc Ginsberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@ambmcg

FOLLOW WORLD
As their humanitarian plight grows more acute, the Syrian people deserve better from the Democratic Party and its elected leadership. If Senator Edward M. Kennedy -- the conscience of the Democrati...
As their humanitarian plight grows more acute, the Syrian people deserve better from the Democratic Party and its elected leadership. If Senator Edward M. Kennedy -- the conscience of the Democrati...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 185
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
photo
PhilosophyandLaw
It's my address too
08:37 PM on 08/31/2012
Reading through the comments here, I noticed that many people are voicing concerns over getting involved in a sectarian conflict--but 'sectarian conflict' is just another name for a political conflict that has taken on religious garb. There is an interesting piece that reflects that fact, www.philosophyandlaw.com/2012/08/syria-sectarian-violence-war.html and what is most interesting commenting on the fact that while we regard sectarianism as some sort of foreign barbarism it is not nearly as alien as we think (and perhaps would like) for it to be.
12:14 PM on 08/31/2012
Perhaps it is time once again to listen to the advice of the author of the United States Constitution:

~~~~~~~
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. . . . [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and . . . degeneracy of manners and of morals. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

-James Madison, Political Observations, April 20, 1795
photo
lostNcolorado
A proud Sand Aggie
12:25 AM on 08/31/2012
To answer the headline question.... Two words. Election Year. To be elected or re-elected is the foremost concern for both parties and their candidates.
10:40 PM on 08/30/2012
Amb. Ginsberg - wait untl after the election. Israel can take care of itself until then.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
micah5050
Organizing for action 2014.
09:26 PM on 08/30/2012
I am not an Assad fan, but I am not a fan of this branch of Sunni Muslim fundamentalist either. We can't get in ever civil war in every country. The citizens that are caught in the middle of all this, I feel deeply for, but we are not the only country in the world, and why do we think our way is the best way. This conflict is not all about democracy. This conflict is complex and involves more super powers than just us. Assad is probably the only thing standing between the christians there and the fundamentalist Muslims. There has been a line in the sand drawn that Pres. Obama says must never be crossed. But I like a Pres. that will try other ways first to solve conflicts without the use of our young men.
08:39 PM on 08/30/2012
No mystery here.
Iran= China's henchman
Syria= Iran's pit bull
USA= China's bitch
06:41 PM on 08/30/2012
Because Obama is trying to diminish US influence in the world.
06:16 PM on 08/30/2012
I'm sorry, Ambassador, because I have always called myself a bleeding heart liberal, but how does our country become the one providing humanitarian aid for the entire world? We can't do it, especially when we have so many people in our own country who are out of work, poor, hungry and perhaps even homeless. My heart does bleed for all the Africans or Middle Easterners or anyone subjected to an inhumane regime, where poverty, hunger and death is the norm rather than the exception. Please tell me what we can do, except going in for another fight that most of us do not want. Or give money that we don't have. I try to support as much charity as I can, but I can't do more than I have the means to do.
photo
johnria
Flying over the cuckoo's nest
05:45 PM on 08/30/2012
Perhaps the reason we are not in Syria, as you suggest, is that there are finally people in charge who like to distance this country from every other country's domestic affairs. It is about time we take a step back and mind our own business. For us going into Syria would only make us part of the problem there. We don't need it. Syria has nothing that would benefit us. I, for one, am releaved that there are no American booths on the ground. If the situation there bothers some of its neighbors let them take action and leave us out of it.
05:16 PM on 08/30/2012
We were involved with the initial phase of the bombing in Libya and the President was attacked by Republicans and also polls showed the country didn't look too highly on us getting involved in another conflict.

That is the reason dems and the President haven't done more, the American people are tired of giving the blood of our people to solve all the ills of the world.

The Europeans could barely handle the bombing of Libya which had a far weaker military and air-defense system, so that means the job would be entirely up to us.
04:57 PM on 08/30/2012
The answere is a simple one.
If they once again backed the Mulim Brotherhood as they did in Egypt, they would most certianly lose in November...

That aside, America needs to STAY out of other countries battles until we right our own ship...
04:25 PM on 08/30/2012
Since the US is already involved in 2 wars - not just one but two - and the strategy is to work within the confines of NATO - YOU . MR. AMBASSADOR should know more about meddling than most.

One has to wonder why the Arabs are not doing more to help their own ??
04:19 PM on 08/30/2012
I'm sure the only reason the author cares about syria is because Assad is not friendly to Israel. If it was mubarak killing his own people he wouldn't care one bit what happened there. It's all about Israel for this guy
foresure
Brash and Harsh
04:13 PM on 08/30/2012
Ambassador:

The U.S. is officially busy now killing people in Afghanistan, Yemen, Uganda and Congo.

It also in the late stages of planning a war on Iran. It must help with the oppression in Baharain. We can't just allow the Saudi's do the heavy lifting in the middle east.

Plus, you never know when our allies in NATO start a war, and then run out of bombs, like they did in Libya.

Plus, no doubt, there will be a demand, to "at least settle scores with Mexico"

What we need to do is cut all civilian Goverment expenses by 80%, so that America can regain its Imperial Glory.
jhNY
Mercy.
04:02 PM on 08/30/2012
Folks who mount arguments through the throats of the dead really shouldn't, as it's ghoulish and unseemly and supremely self-serving.