Meanwhile....in Syria

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson's column this morning asks the question, "Where's the Syria Plan?"  Proving that many slopes are indeed, slippery, Robinson brings up the uncomfortable reality that Assad is just as bad as Gaddafi, and that he may ultimately kill even more people in his bid to remain in power.  Robinson reaches a reasonable conclusion, that he can't see how--with forces as thinly stretched as they are and budget cuts looming--we can intervene militarily in Syria.

He goes on to state "What we need is something the president has refused to provide: an Obama Doctrine governing the use of force to defend civilians against their own despotic governments, or at least spelling out how the United States views its role in the unfolding Arab Spring." He goes on to question whether "...Our approach seems to be that we seek to oust dictators only when their rule is seriously threatened."  Hmmm....sounds reasonable to me. 

So in an effort to help out President Obama and Eugene Robinson, I offer the following framework for an Obama Doctrine Governing the Use of Force to Defend Civilians Against Their Own Despotic Governments (ODGUFDCATODG).

1.  The default position of the United States Government is that it will not become involved militarily in defending civilians against their own despotic governments.  While these events are tragic and regrettable, the support of armed struggle of another people against its own government is not BY DEFINITION in the national security interests of this country.

2.  There will be times when such support IS in the national interest of the United States.  That determination will be made based on a combination of the following factors:
     A.  The existence of a real and demonstrated threat to the lives and or property of American citizens.
     B.  The imminence of such a threat.
     C.  The likelihood that such a threat would spill across an international border in which these factors would then be re-applied.
     D.  The existence of legitimate economic, military, or geo-political interests (worthy of separate excursion in and of itself).
     E.  The absence of capable military forces of neighboring nations willing to do the job themselves, or participate in the effort.
     F.  The likelihood that such an effort would be successful in toppling the regime with minimal military effort.
     G.  The existence of some other nation or nations willing to step up to post intervention responsibilities.

Critical to this approach though is the recognition that Responsibility to Protect (RTP) is a norm, not a law or a mandate, or a tar-pit for great power resources.

Applying this framework to Syria--I believe Mr. Robinson correct in eschewing military intervention.

Bryan McGrath