Syria and the Latest Iteration of the Flawed Doctrine of R2P

I have the sinking feeling that events will outpace my monthly update so I wanted to throw this out there to stay ahead of the curve.  Ironically, it seems I now have the answer to the question I posed in April of 2011, and the answer is 28 months.

Exclusive: Syria strike due in days, West tells opposition – sources:  The Admin is talking itself into a corner.  here is also the strong possibility that they want to do this anyway in hopes of polishing up their Foreign Policy credibility.  We all know how swimmingly their last foray into R2P in Libya went.  What we are seeing here is the definition of insanity: “Doing the same thing and expecting a different result”

Syria crisis: Russia and China step up warning over strike:  Why are we aparently going out of way to piss off the next two largest powers in the world over Syria?  I have no answer to why we might be doing that.  Just consider the leverage either has on the West alone never mind in concert.  Russia controls most energy supplies for Europe and China, well China makes everything the rest of the world uses.  I would say Russia and China have plenty of leverage to make the West pay for strikes on SYria if they so desire to use them.

Lastly, lets revisit this whole concept of R2P that is the rationale for any intervention but will remain unspoken in public. A quick primer:

1. What is R2P?  At it’s most basic R2P is the doctrine that says we (the West) have a responsibility to protect essentially everyone from injustice.  It even has it’s own website.

2. What are it’s origins?  R2P comes out of a whole slew of left wing NGO’s anger at the failure of the west to put out every brushfire and BAD thing that has happened to people since the end of WWII.  A look at the member list is ICR2P is a laundry list of left-wing do-goder groups.  It’s initial statement was made in 2000 although the idea has floated in left-wing circles for some time before that.  There are three core principles that make up this doctrine and they are:

1. The State carries the primary responsibility for the protection of populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.

2. The international community has a responsibility to assist States in fulfilling this responsibility.

3. The international community should use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means to protect populations from these crimes. If a State fails to protect its populations or is in fact the perpetrator of crimes, the international community must be prepared to take stronger measures, including the collective use of force through the UN Security Council.

3.  Why?  I don’t have a good answer to this one.  It seems hypocritical to me that left wing groups that abhor violence are calling for more of what they ostensibly hate to stop what they hate.  But hey, what do I know?  I did not go to an Ivy League schol or anything.