|
|
|
|
|
by ivan_gammel
3433 days ago
|
|
What exactly is "good faith" is hard to tell here, so no, I don't want to distinguish between something which only sounds good and something which does not even pretend to sound good. Is it making good to people of another country? Or making good just to people of America and let the world burn in fire? Or making good for the party agenda, so that some politicians will be reelected in next cycle? How did Obama make that decision not to follow his promise on crossing "red line" by Assad? What were the pros and cons for that decision? How can we be sure that it were not purely U.S. internal politics arguments for giving up? Questions like that do not allow us to forgive mistakes: they force us to hold the governments to account. |
|
And questions like that are asked and answered? Obama had good reasons for not following up on that threat. Read, for example, theatlantic's 'Obama Doctrine' article. It was never obvious that a heavier US intervention in Syria would help the people in Syria at all - in fact, history suggests that the opposite.
On the other hand, it's hard to imagine how the US refusing refugees would make the Syrian situation worse.