 |
| Samantha on Power: “Kill more and prosper!” |
THE
AMBASSADOR FROM HELL? “Samantha Power wrote the book on how the U.S. government
ignores and legitimates genocides. Or was it a handbook?” Forget about
Samantha Power, a Congress that impeached a former U.S. president for a sex
scandal, should be able impeach a president for enabling genocide in Syria,
especially when the facts and the pattern are so clear. But it won’t, will it?
What’s happening in Syria represents a condemnation of the entire American
political system as well as the prevailing culture, and not just a staff member
of a particular administration, nor even the head honcho himself. This does not
excuse them of course, nor is meant to.
The point is: there is
enough support in the policymaking community for Obama’s “realist” position and
enough gridlock in the decision-making system that shames all. If American
policymakers cannot reach a consensus on something like this, and cannot pursue
a policy of smart intervention meant to prevent, or at least stop such mass
slaughter, then, there is something deeply wrong in the whole system. The
malaise goes deeper than we think. And knowing how deep the malaise is I am
almost certain that the very argument I am currently making here could and probably
would be used to create even more confusion.
Be that as it may, I will push my
argument even further by suggesting that I have come to believe deeply that
America at this stage simply does not have what it takes to tackle the various
security challenges that it will be facing it both at home and abroad in the
near future. Lapsing on Westphalian realism to tackle the challenges of the 21st
Century is a sign of serious intellectual bankruptcy. Despite the proliferating
critics of this state of affairs, none has so far delved deep enough into their
analysis of the problem to spur the kind of serious debate that can facilitate
the emergence of viable alternatives to this “realism.” Almost all criticism
levelled at this stage seems to suggest that the problem stems solely out of
the particular quirks and risk-aversion of the Obama Administration, especially
those of President Obama himself.
But when an outside observer,
such as myself, examines the various foreign policy statements made by the
different presidential candidates, Democrat and Republican alike, and when he considers
current Congressional dynamics, and intellectual attitudes, gleaned from the
various policy papers produced by different Washingtonian think tanks, not to
mention popular attitudes as surmised from different polls, he cannot be so
restrictive and forgiving in his assessment.
Another major problem that infects
the ongoing debate, inasmuch as we can speak of one, is the total lack of
external voices, including Syrian voices. Foreigners are almost exclusively
used as props even when the debate is supposed to be about them and their
interests. Criticism from our side, even when we finally become naturalized
citizens, is always dismissed or taken lightly, unless, that is, it coincides
with the interests of one of the parties involved.
