Feckless Human Rights Agenda Promotes Syrian Bloodbath
show comments
  • Jason

    This rather reminds me of the “unconditional surrender” demand the FDR insisted on in WWII. Churchill understood that it was a terrible mistake that rallied the German people and German military around the Nazi’s and gave the Soviet Union carte blanche in Eastern Europe.

    And then there was Japan…

  • I don’t think it makes sense to argue that threats to try Assad as a war criminal give him more incentive to kill. There is no evidence that any “deal” is in the works that would resolve anything, and the ruling Alawites have all the sectarian incentive they need to fight to the bitter end against a Sunni majority they hate and fear. Even in the very unlikely event that Bashar commits the total sectarian dishnonor of stepping down, hardened killers like brother Maher will keep fighting to defend Alawite rule. (If things really get bad for the ruling clique, they might retreat and try to establish an independent Alawite state like that which existed from 1920-1936).

    Obviously the toothless proclamations of Western do-gooders will not make Assad stand down. But they do serve the propaganda purpose of painting our enemies in a bad light, thus thinning the ranks of Western and Arab apologists for the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis.

    I agree that bad do-gooders do a lot of bad. But what exactly is a good do-badder?

  • f1b0nacc1

    Nonsense. Roosevelt (who I don’t care much for) was simply acknowleging the reality imposed by the deep involvement of the USSR in post-war planning. The Soviets would not accept any conclusion to the war which left the Germans less than absolutely prostrate, i.e. unconditional surrender, and FDR understood that after 1943, the Western Allies were no longer in a position to conclude a separate peace that wouldn’t eventually leave the USSR in control of all of Europe. Hence if the Western Allies wanted any role at all in the shaping of post-war Europe, they had to accept that Germany would have to be utterly crushed, for if they didn’t do it, the Soviets would do it themselves.

    And as for Japan, double-nonsense. The Japanese military (and for that part, most of the civilian leadership) were adamant that any surrender would guarantee the role of the Emperor (which in practice also meant the role of the military in the cabinet) and maintain the character of the Japanese state. The allies, quite correctly, assumed that this would mean that a post-war Japan would not renounce militarism, would not rid their government of wartime leaders like Tojo, and would not meaningfully disarm. This would only set the stage for another war in the future. Given that the Japanese (even after Hiroshima) maintained that surrender would only come with conditions which the Allies would never accept (they would supervise their own disarmament, they would retain some, if not all, of their pre-war acquistions in Korea and China, that their military leadership be retained intact, safe from warcrimes trials, etc.), and even after Nagasaki hard-core Japanese militarists attempted (and came closer to success than most like to admit) a last-ditch coup, the notion that the Japanese would have surrendered if not for our insistence on unconditional surrender is simply a convenient fiction promulgated by members of the Japanese leadership to excuse their own involvement in continuing the war.

    Normally I don’t carry much water for FDR, but in this case, he was right on the money. Churchill (whose grand strategic sense was never particularly strong, see Gallipoli for an excellent example) saw what he wanted to see, and even that vision was limited by the paralous state of the UK armed forces by the end of the war. There is no question that unconditional surrender put some steel in the spines of wavering Axis officers, but the nature of the war being fought left few alternatives.

  • f1b0nacc1

    Pedro,

    I would suspect that any of the ‘do-badders’ reviewing the events surround Pinochet’s detention in the UK at the behest of a show-boating Spanish judge would be considerably less likely to cut a deal. With that said, your point regarding Assad’s willingness (or lack thereof) to cut a deal is most well-taken

  • Jacksonian Libertarian

    “From time to time the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Tyrants and Patriots” Thomas Jefferson
    I think it is culturally important for the Syrians to fight the Tyrant. It’s not that I think Syrian Culture is suddenly going to be westernized by the fighting, any more than the Libyans were, but a step in the right direction is still progress.

  • Kris

    “Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov criticized Assad’s response to the Syrian uprising as an overreaction and a mistake”

    He then brought out a washbasin and washed his hands.

    [email protected]: On the other hand, it’s been a while since we’ve had a militarily aggressive Germany.

    [email protected], good point.

    In general, I once again offer my brothel suggestion.

  • Corlyss

    The do-gooder community has never been known for its political smarts. Why should they change now?

  • Kris

    They’re do-gooders, not do-smarters.

    [Are you running for dog-catcher? Call Kris for affordable slogans and catch-phrases. Installment plans available.]

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.