Let me start this post pleading guilty. I was for the war(s) in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now let me say this; I emphatically oppose any action in Syria based on current knowledge and conditions.
I believe in the old saying: "War is hell." I believe it should never be entered lightly for that reason. On the heels of 9/11, war drums were beating. Justifiably or not, I wanted to make sure that the people who took down the towers, attacked the pentagon and sought to attack another unknown target - but were heroically stopped by passengers aboard flight 93 - were brought to justice and prevented from attacking us again. In short, we had a demonstrable clear and present danger that there existed a terrorist network capable of plotting and executing massive attacks against the United States, her citizens and her allies.
With a clear mission - locating and decimating al qaeda and its allies to prevent them from further attacks against us or our interests the President went to Congress and obtained the necessary approval to engage an enemy abroad. Afghanistan was attacked, the Taliban we knew to be harboring al qaeda was toppled and we began working with the Afghani people to secure a transfer of power back to a new government (as a side note, I've never supported the proposition of so-called regime-change). In the decade that followed we've seen the conditions in Afghanistan fluctuate between mostly stable and mostly chaotic and back. We've lost 2250+ US soldiers (and 1100+ non-US coalition forces) in the 12 year war. It is difficult to look back at Afghanistan and answer the questions: Was it worth it? Is Afghanistan stable? Is it a haven for al qeada? Is there a continued threat to US security by the country's government, its people or its military?
Iraq was a different animal all together. We hadn't been directly attacked by its government, its people or military. Iraq had been in violation of more than a dozen or so United Nations Resolutions all mostly related to its weapons programs and inspections of them. Hussein was certainly defiant about the inspections and was quite vocal about the fact that he was building WMDs. The fear was that these WMD might be transferred to terrorists who could covertly use them against us. We HAD to go in and eradicate these WMD before another 9/11 happened. Many were skeptical (and apparently, rightly so). So the President sought appropriate Congressional approval before engaging with Iraq. His Secretary of State showed us all of the "evidence" that WMD existed and were being moved. I fell on the side of enforcing the UN resolutions - serving Iraq with a notice that we were going to find these weapons and that anyone trying to get in our way would get a high-velocity inspection of our troops' ammunition.
I didn't support the notion of regime change then, and I believe both Afghanistan and Iraq are great examples of how not to fight a war specifically because of the regime-change elements of them both. But this isn't a question of military strategy - yet. This is a question about authority and responsibility. Congress still maintains the power of war over the executive branch as spelled out in our Constitution. No President (George W. Bush or Barack Obama included) has the authority to act unilaterally to order our troops into acts of war. Period. They are Constitutionally obligated to take their case to Congress and seek the necessary approval.
Were I in Congress now, I would not grant that approval for Syria at this time. We're told that chemical weapons were used against the Syrian people by Syrian troops as ordered by Assad. Notwithstanding the obvious question - why on Earth would Assad issue such an order when he's clearly capable of slaughtering his people with conventional warfare and the introduction of chemical weapons would have the obvious effect of condemnation, outrage and [serious potential for] military response from the outside world? - the real question is this: How does this affect the United States, her citizens and her allies? How does this meet the threshold of Clear and Present Danger required to ask our citizen soldiers to risk life and limb to engage an enemy? If we aren't going to use that threshold anymore, surely it's obvious whose side we should be on in the conflict - right? Not so much. Assad is supported by Iran (we don't like them) and Russia (an ally, albeit a fickle one). The Rebels are a disorganized bunch but common claims are that they are dominated by Muslim Brotherhood (a militant group that uses religion as a tool/justification for violence and who helped to put Hamas in power - an enemy of Israel).
With the messes over in Egypt and Syria in the news the past few weeks, my wife asked me the other day what the deal was and whose side we were on. My response was that basically the whole region is filled with Taliban types fighting al qeada types and threw the question back at her: Whose side would you pick?
With no clear ally, no clear threat to the United States, no clear objective and no Congressional approval to wage war, what sane person would argue that the United States has an interest -never mind the obligation or authority - to intervene at this time?
The United States has a legitimate interest in a world where the use of chemical weapons (1) is broadly considered unacceptable (2) is met with a strong enough response so as to be a deterrent.
ReplyDeleteTargeted cruise missile strikes against the Syrian military does not constitute fighting the rebel's war for them. It is simply a response to their use of chemical weapons.
Do you want to live in a world where tyrannts are effectively free to use chemical weapons on whomever they want, and as long as their victims are too weak to fight back, they don't have to worry about a response?
Firstly, the President has a duty to prove that his target was responsible for the use of the chem weapons.
ReplyDeleteNext, the firing of weapons on a foreign nation is an act of war - whether it involves boots on the ground or not. You can't attack another nation (justifiably or not) and hide behind nuances that "targeted cruise missile strikes" aren't war. That's like a thug on the street firing his gun at another thug on the street then claiming that it wasn't assault/homicide because it was a targeted strike.
Finally, as to your question about what world I wish to live in - I never said I supported tyrants. I said I don't support US action in Syria "based on the current knowledge and conditions." I am not convinced that Assad ordered the use of the chemical weapons. The entire region is a gigantic cluster-F and it seems like the incestuous alliances between the 80 different groups are always changing. One day the Muslim Brotherhood is a friend to one ally, the next they are an enemy of another. The opposition/rebels in Syria are filled with al qeada and Hamas supporters who both want to wipe Israel off the map yet we support them here in Syria? In Iraq and Afghanistan, troops we're training to take over security one day regularly turn their weapons on us the next. I am not convinced that some rogue general/commander didn't merely overstep their authority (or intentionally defied orders) and deployed the weapons on their own. Alternatively, there still exists the possibility that the opposition itself deployed the chemicals simply to draw us into the conflict on their behalf. If one is going to make the case that the point of the strike is to deter the use of chemical weapons at the very least we had better be damned sure that we're targeting the party actually responsible for their use. I'm not convinced that the asshat in the oval office has any clue - never mind actual evidence - as to WTF is going on anywhere in the world let alone a single incident in Syria.
I think I probably have a little more trust than you that the basic facts that are being reported -- not just the administration, but also by several credible allies including the UK and France. Obviously we're not privy to all of the details, some of which are surely classified, for good reason. I think it's highly likely that Assad was responsible, and I think the people in the know are certain of that beyond a reasonable doubt.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree that the proper route is for Congress to take up this issue and make a decision. And I think that decision should be to respond. Unfortunately, I think our government is not functioning correctly in this regard, which we're probably not going to fix this week. That being the case, the executive branch is likely going to have to decide how to respond without a clear mandate from Congress (unfortunately).
But putting that aside, let me ask you this:
If you were walking down the street at night, with your .380 of course, and saw a "thug" in a dark alley systematically executing a group of unarmed people, including women and children, would you walk on or would you make an executive decision to perform a "targeted strike" on the perpetrator?
You're comparing apples to oranges. The real comparison of the thug scenario is that it's thug vs. thug not thug vs. innocent bystander. I wouldn't jump into a Bloods vs. Crips gang-fight simply because one gang was using weapons I don't like. Right now what we're seeing in Syria is al qeada (who used planes to take down our towers) + Muslim brotherhood (who are actively killing Christian women and children) vs. Assad (who is suspected of using chemical weapons). I abstain from choosing sides in that sort of conflict. Neither is acting in a morally sound fashion and fighting either of them is akin to helping the other.
ReplyDeleteIMHO, I believe that the condemnation of, and ensuing response to, the use of chemical weapons should be independent of the goodness of the victims. Your argument makes it sound like if only the people that were slaughtered had been better people (i.e., people "acting in a morally sound fashion"), then you might think it appropriate to punish the perpetrator.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'm misrepresenting your view, but that would be very shaky ground morally.
I agree that it's messy when it seems like it's bad guys fighting bad guys. That does make one not want to pick sides. And I'm not advocating picking sides in the conflict overall. I'm advocating for impartially condemning and punishing the use of weapons of mass destruction. I completely disagree that fighting either is akin to helping the other. While punishing Assad would result in some benefit to the rebels, that it a tangential side effect that does not bother me nearly as much as turning a blind eye on the use of chemical weapons.