In the summer of 2008, when Russian tanks rolled into Georgia, Americans took a timeout from watching the Olympics to express their collective outrage. John McCain boldly declared, "We are all Georgians," even dispatching his wife to Tbilisi to investigate. Yet when Syria's regime brutally slaughters thousands of its own civilians -- including a hundred in a recent massacre, half of whom were children -- there is barely a peep of outrage from the candidates or the incumbent. Why?
The reasons have partly to do with realpolitik, partly to do with the pressures -- and vagaries -- of campaign politics. Russia, after all, will always serve as a useful punching bag for candidates who came of age during the Cold War. Americans also love a good David and Goliath story, which explains our standing up for small states and plucky movements resisting brutality or ethnic cleansing -- it motivates our interventions in places like Bosnia, Somalia and, more recently, Libya.
But the Georgian war, while important, was only five days long. The Syria conflict, by contrast, has lasted well over 15 months. So why were candidates so animated in 2008, yet have gone largely silent this time around on Syria? There are numerous theories.
In 2008, Georgia became a metaphor for the candidates' willingness to sound tough and stand up to foreign aggression. By a margin of 52% to 27%, voters in 2008 supported McCain over Obama to deal with a resurgent Russia, according to a Quinnipiac poll conducted shortly after the war. Interestingly Obama's vice presidential candidate, Joe Biden, who had previously visited Georgia, sounded decidedly more pro-Georgia than his running mate. "The war that began in Georgia is no longer about that country alone," Biden told reporters at the time, summoning World War II-era rhetoric. "It has become a question of whether and how the West will stand up for the rights of free people throughout the region. The outcome there will determine whether we realize the grand ambition of a Europe that is whole, free, and at peace." (He later convinced the Bush administration to greenlight $1 billion in emergency aid to Georgia, which is much larger than the $100 million initially promised to Syrian rebels). Similarly, McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, made headlines after hinting in an interview with ABC News that she would be willing to "go to war with Russia" to defend Georgia.
Standing up for Syrian protesters is a more complicated enterprise. The policy prescriptions do not make for a nice soundbite, and there is less daylight between the candidates. It is relatively easy to cut Georgia a check for a billion dollars and wag one's finger at the Kremlin. Standing up to a strongman like Vladimir Putin plays well among security moms and in swing states, and a violation of any state's sovereignty is bound to provoke a reaction in the West. Yet it is a much more daunting task to commit military air strikes in yet another Muslim country on the brink of civil war.
Syria is not Libya, which lent itself much more readily to imposing a no-fly zone and isolating the regime. "Restraint," which McCain railed against in 2008, has been the order of the day (To nobody's surprise he has pushed for greater intervention in Syria). The recent massacre there should have warranted a greater emotional response from the West, yet it hasn't. The reasons partly have to due with Assad's media blockade, but also the rumor mill (Aren't these protesters swarming with al-Qaeda types? Wouldn't intervention only unleash a sectarian civil war?). There have been no Kony 2012-style videos made about Syria, only grainy YouTube footage. No Hollywood A-listers or politicians have come out and said: "We are all Syrians."
But the main reason has to do with campaign politics. A Fox News poll earlier this year showed that 82% of Americans only support our sending humanitarian aid, not delivering arms to rebels or ordering Libya-style air strikes. Which is why the candidates have cautiously straddled the fence on intervening in Syria, caught between appealing to voters' wariness of messy foreign interventions and their reflexive instinct of sounding tough and defending those who seek freedom abroad, even if it won't win them any votes. Mitt Romney has favored arming the rebels but not militarily intervening. Obama has favored giving the rebels non-lethal equipment but not arms.
Yet nobody believes that sending night-vision goggles is going to tip the balance of power in Syria in the rebels' favor. The world responded almost in unison to intervene diplomatically in the Caucasus in 2008 -- an EU-led investigation was swiftly launched -- while Syria has appeared to drive the international community apart.
The pressures of campaign politics has influenced -- tempered in some cases, heightened in others -- our response or non-response to these wars (Indeed, world crises that occur during the late-inning stretches of a U.S. presidential campaign should almost get their own analytical category among historians and political scientists). Maybe there is something of Arab Spring fatigue setting in among Western policymakers. Still, one has to wonder that if this were not an election year whether there would have been a more forceful U.S. response to the bloodshed in Syria.
An election has a funny way of suspending our rationality abroad -- we hyperventilate when Russia invades its neighbor, but hold our breath when Assad slaughters his own citizens.
Jeffrey Laurenti: Assad at the Tipping Point
Can the US afford another war?Anywhere? I know with the efforts to further develop our country here admidst the economic gloom effecting us from Europe etc we can not afford as such.
If the regimes are intent on scrapping let's chuck them in a ring together. Glove them up. Let them hissy-fit & fisty -cuff it out amongst themselves so that perhaps, may be, hope fully we the ordinary people can get on with the business of being civil to one another ..globally.
âThe benefits included a major policy change that would potentially end the ability of seniors to purchase cheaper prescription drugs from offshore sources.â
Weber said that the issue is not whether a deal was cut, but who cut the deal, the White House or Senate surrogates. Â He cited Texas Congressman Mike Burgess who said the documents describe âa sequential, planned, organized strategy for the White House to trade policy for politics.â
Those who are "liberal Interventionists" and expect others to do the interventions while they watch the misery from the comfort of their sofa, are without backbone.
Look into a mirror!
And it's not just the issue of creating friction with russia---if we go into yet ANOTHER middle eastern country--after Iraq, Libya, and vocal support for the rebels in Egypt--Iran and others will no doubt use that to convince people there that we are trying to take over the entire region, or remake it in our image.
Then there's also the issue of exactly who we're supporting if we try to intervene. Stopping the bloodshed is a noble endeavor, but it comes with the sometimes unwanted side-effect of giving aid to some very undesirable individuals or groups.
Intervention isn't always an easy game to play--every time you do it, you take the chance of getting caught in a trap.
Perhaps you should study a bit of the cold war.
If you have to ask why the U.S. has to play politics in regard to Syria even rhetorically, you shouldn't be writing blogs.
Not even the Republican party sees McCain as a leader any more.
You speak of 'the rebels' as if they were a united group. They are not. The only thing uniting them is their dislike for the current government. Eliminate that and they'll then go after each other and the humanitarian situation will not be greatly improved.
If you really want to help this area, prohibit US grain stocks from being made into ethanol for automobiles and food prices - the thing that triggered this - will gradually return to where these people can afford to eat again. Now THAT would be a humanitarian thing to do.
georgia was invaded by a foreign power and has a central, democratically elected government. giving them aid goes directly to that government. giving aid to various syrian rebel groups goes to people we may like and people we won't like (like reagan giving money and training to afghanis mujahadeen, and osama bin laden, and we all know how well that worked out).
these are the reasons why we need to wait for the syrian "opposition"' to unite and become the sole representative of the syrian people and to prevent libyan style anarchy from enveloping the country once assad is forced out of office. once united, let nato get behind them and give them the weaponry and air support that they need.
Hillary Clinton Admits US and Al-Qaeda On Same Side in Syria
http://www.infowars.com/hillary-clinton-admits-us-and-al-qaeda-on-same-side-in-syria/
Considering President Obama has not once been a shrinking violet from any kind of military action since he has been in office, but has gone after the "bad guys" with thought out determination and carefully measured strategy, and success, do you think maybe we should give the President the benefit of the doubt? Maybe since he knows things and has information the rest of us do not have, he is doing what he thinks is the best coarse for "our" country for all kinds of important reasons?
Speaking of playing politics, remember the Republicans reaction to how the President handled Libya? Oh my, they were loudly against EITHER the President's involvement at all, OR, that he wasn't involved enough with ON THE GROUND military action, the point being, they were against WHATEVER the President did. Period. They took the OPPOSITE view, and that didn't stop the President from doing it the way HE thought was right.
Would their reactions any different with the Syria situation? They either slam him for getting involved, or slam him for not getting involved enough.
The situation with Syria is MUCH more complicated then the Libya situation, and so are the possible "consequences" of a US involvement, especially the LONE involvement.
I'm giving the President the benefit of a doubt here. I do not believe he is basing his decisions on an ELECTION or just "politics"