. . . the Obama administration remains deeply divided about whether to take more forceful action to try to quell the fighting, which has killed more than 90,000 people over more than two years. Many in the American government believe that the military balance has tilted so far against the rebels in recent months that American shipments of arms to select groups may be too little, too late.Some senior State Department officials have been pushing for a more aggressive military response, including airstrikes to hit the primary landing strips in Syria that the Assad government uses to launch the chemical weapons attacks, ferry troops around the country and receive shipments of arms from Iran. But White House officials remain wary, and on Thursday Benjamin J. Rhodes, one of Mr. Obama’s top foreign policy advisers, all but ruled out the imposition of a no-fly zone and indicated that no decision had been made on other military actions.
The decision has angered some of Obama's supporters and pleased some critics, but I think the most interesting arguments are from those who suggest the decision is based on realpolitik, which is defined as "politics based on practical considerations: politics based on pragmatism or practicality rather than on ethical or theoretical considerations."
Here's a quote pulled fromt the wikipedia page on the subject:
"The study of the powers that shape, maintain and alter the state is the basis of all political insight and leads to the understanding that the law of power governs the world of states just as the law of gravity governs the physical world."President Nixon was argued to base his foreign policy on the it - meaning that he was guided less by principle and theory than on the need to deal with the powers that existed in the world in a pragmatic manner. Increasingly President Obama is argued to have a similar approach in his foreign policy. Ideals - including human rights - take a backseat to whatever is necessary to check the powers of world nations.
Here's a suggestion that this is behind not only the delayed response to the civil war, but the limited support for the rebels right now. There are forces behind both the existing regime and the rebels that we do not care for, and that we consider destabilizing. Iran and Hezbollah is backing Assad, and groups affiliated with radical Islam are backing at least some of the rebels. While we are not anxious to have either side win, a long drawn out resource depleting conflict between the two could make all less capable to be disruptive in the Middle East.
A prolonged war may be in our best interest.
But there could be another reason for doing just enough to keep the two sides fighting. The Assad regime is increasingly relying on Hezbollah to fight throughout the country. The rebels for their part are relying on jihadist and al Qaeda allies to fight back. Keeping two of the United States’ most active terrorist enemies fighting each other might be seen in some circles as not such a bad thing.
This allows for human rights abuses, but realpolitik does not take that into consideration as a valid issue.
