U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Pulls Study That Supported Obama's Decision Not to Intervene in Syria

An upcoming study from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is facing criticism due to its sympathetic stance toward Obama-era Syria policy. The study finds that the Obama administration worked against the Assad regime to the best of its ability.

In response to critics of the pro-Obama administration study, the museum has formally taken down the report for review.

The study is overseen by a former Obama-era U.S. intelligence and national security official, and was due to be released on September 11. It contends that “a variety of factors, which were more or less fixed, made it very difficult from the beginning for the U.S. government to take effective action to prevent atrocities in Syria, even compared with other challenging policy contexts.”

The U.S.' involvement in Syria's civil war is largely acknowledged as inaction. The Obama administration chose not to directly intervene in the six-year conflict, instead focusing on humanitarian aid, promoting ceasefires and arming anti-Assad rebels. Essentially, the study claims that further Obama-administration efforts to support anti-Assad regimes and U.S. strikes would “not have reduced atrocities in the country, and might conceivably have contributed to them.” 

The Syrian conflict caused the death of 60,000 people, “either as a result of direct bodily torture, or denial of food and medicine."

Many Jewish community leaders and critics of the study are perplexed by the contradiction between the Holocaust Museum’s efforts to raise awareness about “bystanderism,” or inaction, and its support for this study.

“The first thing I have to say is: Shame on the Holocaust Museum,” Leon Wieseltier, a fellow at the Brookings Institute and literary critic, told Tablet Magazine.

"If I had the time I would gin up a parody version of this that will give us the computational-modeling algorithmic counterfactual analysis of John J. McCloy’s decision not to bomb the Auschwitz ovens in 1944. I’m sure we could concoct the f**king algorithms for that, too.”

Wieseltier’s comment is a reference to the study, which according to Tablet, used computational methods, game theory and analysis from experts and policy-makers to formulate its conclusion. 

Some critics are so outraged they feel support of the study has effectively eradicated the museum’s “moral authority.” 

Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, agrees that the study is a “misstep” for several reasons; he says the genocide is not yet over, so policy-making is ongoing, and it’s not “appropriate for the museum to issue this kind of judgement—that’s beyond its mandate.”

While museums staff worked with Syrian activists to produce exhibits featuring photos from inside secret Syrian prisons and videos that raise awareness on the conflict, the museum did not reach out to the advocates this time around. 

The study comes in conjunction with an influx of National Security Council members from the Obama administration joining the museum’s staff and board, including Ben Rhodes, a former deputy national security advisor who oversaw policy in Syria. Most former Obama administration members declined Tablet’s requests for comment. 

At the time of its publication, the study was no longer on the museum’s website due to concerns from “a number of people with whom we have worked closely on Syria since the conflict's outbreak.” The notice added that, “the museum has decided to remove the study from its website as we evaluate this feedback.”