From the Judge's Chambers -The Obama Doctrine and the Dilemma of Compassion

By William C. Whitbeck A friend of mine, John Lindstrom of Gongwer News Service, recently wrote a very interesting piece in Dome Magazine in which he ruminated that, in this age of limited resources and reduced governmental spending, every good conservative will proclaim that he or she believes in cutting government spending, in low taxes, and in personal responsibility. But when that person's child needs help, "then less government spending and all the rest be damned, my child needs help and you cannot deny my child help." It is an odd juxtaposition of terms, but Lindstom is actually illustrating the dilemma of compassion. Most humans have some empathy for those in need, whether based on religious belief or springing simply from a generalized sense of pity mixed with the slightly guilty, usually muted, realization that there but for the luck of the draw go I. But if it is your child, your brother, your mother, your lifelong friend, your neighbor who needs help--when the general becomes the specific--then compassion becomes angst and pity often morphs into action. In international affairs, the dilemma of compassion becomes even more complex. When we see the suffering of others in places like Rwanda, or the Sudan, or Tibet, that suffering is remote, abstract, generalized. Through the images on television or the Internet, we see the starving children with their wide, staring eyes and their distended bellies, we see the crumpled bodies in the streets, we see the boy soldiers with their assault rifles and their studied, deadly indifference, we see the crowds chanting and screaming. But for most of us, these images are only shadows dancing on a wall, insubstantial and easily forgotten. They are, after all, neither our kin nor our people And so too it is with nations. It is a brutal fact that most nations most of the time act in their self- interest and not out of compassion. The United States did not intervene in Rwanda, although many thousands died. We have watched the fratricide in the Sudan for over a decade, and done next to nothing. We know of the constant oppression of the Tibetan people by the Chinese, but we avert our eyes, diplomatically and, most assuredly, militarily. As individuals, we may feel some level of compassion, but nations cannot afford such niceties. And now, thankfully, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has given us a fig leaf to cover our guilt over those situations where our individual compassion is aroused but our national self- interest is not yet implicated. Under questioning by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Panetta stated in essence that we would not intervene militarily in Syria without the "permission" of an international body, presumably meaning the United Nations, or our allies, presumably meaning NATO. When asked by an incredulous Sessions whether he meant that this policy--call it the Obama doctrine--required the permission of other nations or international groups, but not the permission of the Congress, before the United States would use military force, Panetta did not give a direct answer. But the import of his comments was clear: that is exactly what he meant. How very convenient. We can now avoid the use of military force--historically an anathema to the far left--simply by invoking the requirement for foreign "permission." No more rescue missions like Somalia. No more go it virtually alone adventures in the desert with a cowboy like George W. Bush leading the charge. No more retroactive guilt over Rwanda, the Sudan, and Tibet. And, conversely, when we by some miracle secure the requisite international approval, no more dealing with pesky things like the Congress and the Constitution. Of course, the images persist, images of the dead and the dying in Syria as Assad indiscriminately slaughters his own people and burns their cities. And we indeed are compassionate individuals. But it is all so remote and, besides, we don't have "permission" to act. We have the Obama doctrine. Published: Thu, Apr 5, 2012