STAFF WRITER

“Are you able to live with the consequences of doing nothing?”

This question, raised by Virginia Democrat Gerald E. Connolly, is a synopsis of the American quandary regarding the humanitarian crisis in Syria. The statement appears to paint Syria as the only major issue in the world with which we must stomach our choice to intervene, or to “punt,” as many have pejoratively claimed President Obama has already done.

In following the analogy, “punting”, in football, is generally regarded as a wise and tacit understanding that the situation at hand is not currently conducive to success, aptly summarizing the objective outlook of even a limited campaign against Assad. Syria may be the hot button issue of the moment, but Connolly’s statement is applicable to many global crises that we have collectively turned a blind eye to and suffered a significantly lesser degree of guilt on our national conscience.

We, as a nation, managed to find a way to live with the consequence of doing nothing during the genocides in Darfur and Rwanda, and our nation’s emotional A.D.D. certainly got us past the Kony 2012 movement when the video’s cool music and “the younger generation will save the world” bravado began to wane a week into being the Internet sensation of the moment.

As you would expect in a blue-state liberal arts college, teeming with Frisbee-tossing students on Edward’s Parade, many students vehemently oppose intervention in Syria, recognizing that we do have to “punt” on some, even many, of the issues which pull at our nation’s heartstrings.

While this is a cheap punch, to pull in the debate, we could have lived with the consequences of doing nothing in 2003 when Saddam Hussein occupied the title of “international boogeyman of the day”.

Many may pass off the hawkish desire to intervene as a pure and genuine concern for the 1,400 innocent civilians who were killed when Assad’s forces opted to lob missiles laden with sarin gas into Syrian villages. Lost on many, however, is the fact that the conflict has been raging for years now and has claimed the lives of an estimated 100,000 Syrians.

Acknowledging the universal ban on chemical weapons in warfare, it is lost on me how the means one uses to carry out a mass killing influences the dialogue in any meaningful manner. Had the Assad regime opted to carry out those killings through the use of firing squads, would they have treaded, but not crossed, the proverbial “red line” set by the international community?

I find it quite hypocritical to sit idle while Assad butchers his people, but to call for immediate intervention once the use of chemical weapons is introduced to the equation. Genocide is genocide and we have opted to turn a blind eye to plenty in the past, in regions representing much less of a “powder keg” on the global stage. I am, by no means, doubting those in favor of intervention’s concern for human life, but few acknowledge the non-humanitarian ramifications our action or inaction would hold. Regardless of what course of action we take, we will, inevitably, be sending a subliminal message to Iran, the nation posing the most real threat to our own security in the world, going forward.

The lessons of Iraq and the “shock and awe” campaign carried out in 2003 have shown that posturing on the global stage and making examples of oppressive regimes does little, if anything, to dissuade other rogue states in the region from furthering their own agendas and WMD programs.

Americans must come to grips with the fact that a limited strike will have relatively little effect on Assad’s capabilities, and even the most hawkish of opinions would agree that a “boots on the ground” campaign is absolutely off the table. Acknowledging we cannot fix all of the world’s ills by sheer brute force of our military and clout in the international community is not an admittance of weakness, but a pragmatic and necessary step for American foreign policy.

Doing nothing and “punting” will not embolden and rally the forces of evil; America is not going anywhere and will still be called to task.

Joseph Clines, FCRH ‘14, is an economics major from Malverne, N.Y.