Laments for Aleppo and for the millions of Syrians caught in civil war frequently include complaints about inaction by the West, especially by the United States. Surely, critics say, the United States could have done more to stop the greatest humanitarian catastrophe of the 21st century, in which a half million people have been killed, another half million have been wounded or gone missing, and 14 million people have been displaced.
There is no doubt that for six years Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad has waged a brutal war against his own people. His signature methods were on display in the siege of Aleppo, where government forces used chlorine gas and indiscriminate barrel bombs on rebel troops, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths. Until Assad’s troops gained control of eastern Aleppo in mid-December, civilians were cut off from food, water, and medical supplies.
Yet those denouncing inaction have never outlined a convincing alternative to what the United States and its allies have done—which is primarily to urge the warring parties toward a cease-fire and to lobby for humanitarian relief. The proposals for more forceful intervention have had only a slight chance of success and could easily make the situation worse. Doing something is not always better than doing nothing.
