Do no harm

Sometimes Juan Cole can be kind of annoying:

The world community has failed Syria, just as it failed Rwanda and the Congo, though the human toll in Syria is a fraction of those killed in the African events. Russia and China have used their veto to block any effective United Nations Security Council resolution that might lead to regime change. India has also, unlike the Arab League, opposed any call for President Bashar al-Assad, the Butcher of Homs, to step down.

Those on the left and in the libertarian movement who stridently condemned Arab League and NATO intervention in Libya (which forestalled massacres like the one we just saw in the Baba Amr district of Homs) have been silent about al-Assad’s predations and clueless as to what to do practically. Perhaps they do not care if indigenous dictators massacre indigenous protesters, as long as there is no *gasp* international intervention.

Perhaps being "clueless as to what to do practically" is actually the realistic response? After all, as Cole seems to acknowledge later, in pure military terms Assad's grip on power is much stronger than Gaddafi's was, and so it's highly unlikely that a little logistical and air support is going to be enough to unseat him, as it was in Libya--and even there it was a close thing. So what exactly should the "world community" [ha] be doing? Sanctions? Because those have worked so well everywhere else they've been tried (Cuba, Iraq, Iran . . . ). Forceful statements of displeasure? His random mention of India implies Cole wants more of that. I suppose that would make us all feel better (and avoid accusations of not caring) but it's not going to make a whit of practical difference on the ground.