Politics or Pragmatism: "The wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy"…

“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...