The crackdown by Syrian dictator Bashar Assad against his own citizens counts as one of the most blood-soaked acts of political repression in the Middle East since his father, Hafez Assad, waged his own onslaught against anti-regime activists three decades ago.Almost 10,000 have died in the current Syrian uprising, and each passing day brings the killing and torture of more civilians, including many children.
Some critics say the United States has shamed itself by not intervening aggressively on behalf of Syria's dissidents.
They're wrong. The Obama administration hasn't helped to arm the rebels, nor has it created safe havens for persecuted dissidents. But it has done something far more important: It has provided the Syrian opposition with very strong language to describe Assad's atrocities.
The administration's unprecedented verbal sorties against the Assad regime have included some of the most powerful adjectives and adverbs ever aimed at an American foe. This campaign has helped Syrians understand, among other things, that the English language contains many synonyms for "repulsive."
But a crisis is approaching: America's stockpile of vivid adjectives is being depleted rapidly. Some linguists of the realist camp are now arguing for restraint in the use of condemnatory word combinations.
They note that the administration, in its effort to shock and awe the Assad regime with the stridency of its briefings, has prematurely stripped bare its thesaurus, leaving the U.S. powerless to come to the symbolic aid of the Syrian people.
When the uprising began last year, the Obama administration clearly hoped that softer language would persuade Assad to cease murdering Syrians. It relied on traditional formulations of diplomatic distaste, calling on Syria to "exercise restraint" and "respect the rights of its citizens."
When it became clear that mild criticism wouldn't stay Assad's hand, the administration began carpet-bombing Damascus with powerful sentences and, at times, whole paragraphs.
