“As a preemptive action today, however well-justified, may
come back with unwelcome consequences in the future...I don't care how precise
your bombs and your weapons are, when you set them off, innocent people will
die. "
I ran across this quote recently, and for obvious reasons, both timely
and topical, it caught my attention. Who said it? These words were
spoken by former president, William Jefferson Clinton.Was this a recent comment that Clinton made while alluding to the dangers of a potential limited strike in Syria?...No...these were Clinton's words of warning, given in October 2002, regarding looming military action in Iraq...the situations?...somewhat similar in many respects, yet different in others...the words?...hauntingly prophetic, then and perhaps now?...
Over the past three weeks, I have listened to and read about loyal supporters of the President, irritated by opposition to this "limited" action
that the President is currently contemplating in response to President Assad's
(authoritarian ruler of Syria) alleged use of chemical weapons against his own
people, wondering aloud what is the difference between Bush in Iraq and Obama in Syria, once
again rationalizing this Administration's policies and actions by comparing
(ad nauseam) them to those of his predecessor...they intimate that the only
reason that those who oppose action against Syria do so is because President
Obama is proposing it…on a variety of levels, I find such reasoning to be both
specious and disingenuous…
At the time and in retrospect as well, I unabashedly, and without
regret, supported action against Iraq…when launched on March 19, 2003,
Operation Iraqi Freedom was initiated just over 18 months (554 days to be
precise) after the most deadly attack on American soil in our history, the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001...against this backdrop of national
mourning, anger, paranoia, confusion, wounded pride and a desire for vengeance,
America, seeking to right a wrong that had been done to it and to punish those
responsible for the death of almost three thousand Americans in a single day,
struck out against a dictator with whom it had a past, a past in which he had
purposefully and willfully sought to establish himself as an enemy of and
threat to these United States...
A dictator who, IN POINT OF FACT, had used chemical weapons
OF HIS OWN during the 1980s against his foreign enemies in Iran (Note: some evidence exists that suggests that,
ironically, he did so with the U.S. turning a knowing but blind eye to their
use rather than seeing the mullahs gain the upper hand in the Iraq-Iran
conflict), as well as against recalcitrant domestic foes in the Kurds of northern Iraq...among the estimated 100,000 to 200,000 killed as part of
Sadam’s reputed genocide operation against the Kurds, as many as 5000 were
killed in a SINGLE aerial gas attack in Halabja, with perhaps as many as 50,000
total succumbing to Sadam's chemicals...
While the intelligence regarding Iraq's WMD (chemical,
biological, and nuclear) programs eventually proved somewhere between false and
vastly overblown (it is beyond naïve, however, to a) suggest that this
inaccurate intelligence was unsupported by the intelligence communities of many
nations around the world, and b) that Saddam played no role himself in creating, perpetuating and lending credence to the WMD myth, given that his incessant cat and mouse games with UN
weapons inspectors tended to give the impression that he was a man
with something to hide) (Note to Saddam Hussein: Be careful the games that you
play; if you wish the world to believe that you are a bad man, then you might
just get what you wish for), as well did the pre-war intel that the regime was
aiding and abetting Al Qaeda in a substantial way, the perception of the evil
and ill intentions that Saddam and Iraq embodied was initially and widely
accepted as well warranted, so much so that by the time the invasion of Iraq
was launched the world had expended almost two years of time and energy investigating, negotiating
with and trying to reign in the rogue regime; President Bush had secured bi-partisan
congressional authorization for military action (with about 43% of Democrats voting
in favor of it) against Iraq; a large, international coalition had been assembled
and a Multi-National Force forged to undertake its invasion; and over 70% of
Americans supported the action...in other words, there was, at a bare minimum,
a short-term, solid consensus that military action was just and necessary before
it was actually undertaken…
As the war unfolded and a) our search revealed that the WMDs
did not exist in the purported state or quantities that the pre-war intel had suggested
(or, at a minimum, that they had, by that time, been whisked away into hiding,
perhaps in SYRIA, before we arrived - remember, it’s not as though Saddam, like
Assad has had now, had no clue that we were coming or lacked time to prepare for that inevitability) and b) Saddam
was toppled, apprehended from his spider hole, and turned over to the
Iraqis, perhaps we should have (in my humble opinion, after extracting
reimbursement in oil from Iraq for our troubles, much the same that someone
making a false missing persons claim might be required to reimburse authorities
for causing the "wild goose chase" search) patted the Iraqis on the
back, wished them good luck and simply withdrawn, leaving the Iraqis to sort
things out for themselves...
But the U.S., being the control freaks, humane sort and the lovers of democracy that we are, chose to hang around for an obligatory (and
likely futile) exercise in "feel good" nation building, forced
democratization and reconstruction...beyond those incentives to stay after the
initial mission had been accomplished (search for WMDs and toppling Saddam), the
looming presence next door of Iran, an enemy to both the Iraqis and ourselves, as well as our
lingering paranoia that Al Qaeda and the 9/11 conspirators were still on the run, made an expeditious exit from an Iraq in
total turmoil far from propitious and less than prudent…one way or the other, for
good reason or in error, we remained in Iraq far too long (as many as five years
too many) and at far too great a cost in national blood and treasure...in the
end, perhaps we should just have said, “Screw ‘em” and come home…Which brings to mind old truism…you know, “Hindsight is 20-20”…
In the last several days since punting to Congress and then asking for the ball back, given that the Russians had swooped in to save our a…um, the day (Note: the Russians are NOT, I repeat, are not our friends; Romney, despite the derision he received from the President, was correct in that they are our greatest enemy), as well as to reap whatever gravitas that might come their way in the region and the world for having done so, the President and his advisers have repeatedly reminded us that “Syria is not Iraq”…well, on that point, they are correct…
So, I wonder...if hindsight is indeed clear and correct, why would
we, in our right minds, ignore the lessons of history and repeat our mistakes
of the past…yeah, I know, I know, we’re just planning a “limited and
targeted response” to deter the
abhorrent use of weapons that 98% of the world agrees should be forbidden (Note:
Right or wrong, Syria, a sovereign nation, is part of the 2% that
disagrees)…
What is taking place in Syria is a civil and sectarian
conflict...it is not our fight and is certainly not one that we need to
have a dog in…in Assad, we have a westernized, secular, yet brutal dictator who is in bed with the Iranians,
Hezbollah, and the Russians, bad folks none of whom are friendly to the U.S. and
its interests…in the rebels who oppose
him, we have people who would cut the heart out of an opponent and eat it, who
would behead a priest with a hunting knife, and who would summarily execute
shirtless, hands bound opponents kneeling before them on the ground…in them, we would
likely wind up with an Islamist state that, if not radicalized in the
beginning, would likely eventually become another Muslim Brotherhood dominated,
anti-Western, jihadist state similar to the one that was taking shape in Egypt
prior to the military undertaking a coup there…either way, Syria is likely a lose-lose
proposition for us when it comes to our picking sides…
After almost nine years in Iraq and a dozen in Afghanistan,
we are war weary people…regarding the prospects of another war, the American
public simply doesn’t have the stomach for more…not now…is that reason enough
for us to turn our backs now, to ignore the use of prohibited, ugly weapons
against innocents, among them children?...NO…so does that mean then that, should
the Russian diplomatic gambit fail, we should strike Assad to
diminish his capacity from using these weapons again and to deter him from
wanting to, for fear of being on the receiving end of more of our moral outrage?...NO…no, it doesn't...
Unilateral military action, however limited and targeted it
might be intended to be, by the United States at this time, against this nation, in
this region would be, as General Omar Bradley warned against expanding the
Korean War into China, as General McArthur wished to, "The wrong war, at
the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy"…why so?...
Simple…as noted, we have been an invading presence in this part of the
world for over a decade (over two, if you want to go back as far the Persian
Gulf War) now…as a result, there are now at least three of generations of Middle Easterners
who view us (and resent us) as invaders, if not “infidels”, as well, and one of
those generations has grown up with and knows nothing but that view of us…they
are already ripe for radicalization, without our making yet another encroachment
into their land (and if religious and political reasons weren’t enough, I am
reminded of the response of the Confederate prisoner when asked by his Union
captor, “Why do you fight?”…the Rebel responded, “Because you are here”)…
We are all aware, by now,
and especially on this day, of the ardor, the passion, and the hatred that
the radical, Islamist jihadists possess towards us and our way of life, even disassociated from the desire of
their faith to proselytize and convert the world to Islam (at the tip of a sword if
and when necessary)…we are talking about a people some of whom will blow themselves up in
martyrdom simply to make a religious and political point…yeah, I know, all of
them aren’t radical…but in hindsight, few Russians were Bolsheviks, few Germans were
really Nazis, and few Japanese were imperialists (and in many respects, by the
way, the Japanese viewed Pearl harbor as a limited, targeted action)…
Knowing the colors of this regional canvas, the existence of this vitriolic state of mind when it comes to us, the West, our religion, our culture, and its values, for us to believe that the seeds of the idea, the dream, the blood lust,
perhaps even the plans themselves for how they will punish “the infidels” should they come
again have not already sprouted and grown strong, far and wide among the people of this region seems
simultaneously feckless and foolhardy…as a result, I don't
believe that we should reenter the fray in this part of the world, not at this
particular point in time...should we do so, I fear that the radicals in the region will not allow us to so
easily withdraw this time and certainly not without extracting a great price from us for our having returned…
Now, does that mean that we should fear them and that, like the tortoise, America should withdraw into its shell, into
isolationism and say, “Screw the rest of the world!” (that we can really do so
or that the rest of the world would leave us alone to live in peace are both flawed notions
anyway)?...No, of course, not…Does it mean that we should fear Assad?...No, please, not directly...Does it mean that we should simply ignore our
conscience when it comes to the evils in the world like the use of chemical weapons?...No, of course not…what it
means is that we need to be realistic and pragmatic in our humanitarianism and
in our idealism…we need to balance and temper the latter with the former...right now, we are in a weakened state, economically, militarily,
and in terms of our morale…we need to get ourselves strong…we need to right our
own ship, as well as our own wrongs…
And we need to lead from the front, not from behind, in terms of leading
our international partners in the United Nations, the Chemical Warfare
Commission, NATO, etc., in a more effective and productive fashion, towards influencing
the outcomes of good over evil and right versus wrong around the world that we
share…after all, what good are organizations and agreements to promote
international cooperation if they don’t really work and really stand for
anything…
Does this mean that I have become a Ron Paul-style non-interventionist?…no,
hell, no…and does this mean that I have been converted to the President’s
globalist views…no, hell, no…I’m an American, America first and foremost, all
day every day…but in the reality of living in a world with neighbors, we can
attempt to be good neighbors…but make no mistake, if you have to be part of a community, it is better to be kings of the hill...we can be good
neighbors but neighbors that lead, not follow…And should our interests and/or security be threatened, or God forbid, should we be attacked?...then we should open the “gates of hell” and may God have mercy upon our transgressors…but we need to be strong…I have always thought it best that if we were going to "speak softly and carry a big stick" that we need to have the biggest , best stick that there is…
Unilateral, limited, targeted strike in the Middle East? Now?...no sir, not
today…no clearly defined objective...no clear plans for the “what if”
contingencies and the aftermath…nothing substantive in terms of international
support, except for verbal and moral support (as Thomas Sowell said, those who
are “with us” on this are willing “to fight to the last American”)…inadequate
planning for the post-war consequences of our actions was probably the biggest mistake
and the take away from Iraq…we can control what we do, but we don’t control how
others respond to it…believing that we do and can control everything is, I believe, naïve and
short-sighted…God forbid that we should fall victims of our own jingoism
and national machismo…and like the old advice warns us, we should, in this
case and in most others, think with our heads first, not with our hearts...
So, for me at least, this ain’t about politics (as incompetently as I
think the Administration has handled it)…it’s about pragmatism, and it’s about history..Vietnam?...Iraq?...don’t
do it…not now…remember that admonition, "The wrong war, at the wrong
place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy"…Yep...