Guest AuthorPresident Obama’s astounding lack of a coherent foreign and military policy in regard to the Syrian civil war has resulted in a lack of support for military action there both in Congress and among the American people.
A large majority of Americans just don’t want to fight another war where the policy objectives are blurred, the parameters for military victory are not defined, and our national treasury, our arms, and the blood of our youth will be unnecessarily wasted — again.
Much of that angst results from how we Americans define “war” these days.
The debate about intervening in Syria centers mainly on whether the initial, limited strike that Obama is threatening will escalate the fighting there and spread into neighboring countries.
That would most likely result in U.S. troops once again landing in the Mideast to fight in the middle of yet another civil war – with or without the required constitutional congressional approval.
In a time where we fight continuous, limited military “actions” against many enemies in many nations, our nation is tired of the body bags coming home.
So it’s all about whether the U.S. is going to put “boots on the ground” in Syria.
Originally, the term “boots on the ground” was used as a catch phrase to argue that only a required deployment of troops in a war theater could achieve military victory.
With the evolution of military technology in terms of automation, power and accuracy, the use of troops in a large scale that is denoted by the “boots on the ground” jargon has become to some extent obsolete.
In 2013, the US can easily wage devastating war from space, in the cyber-world, and across the globe directed from the U.S. mainland using unmanned ships and aircraft to the same effect as committing troops during the last century.
Yet today, “boots on the ground” remains a “red line” catch phrase that distinguishes between actually fighting a war or launching a “limited engagement.”
This is what Obama argued to justify taking “limited” military action against Syria:
“So the key point that I want to emphasize to the American people: The military plan that has been developed by the joint chiefs and that I believe is appropriate is proportional,” Obama said. “It is limited. It does not involve boots on the ground. This is not Iraq and this is not Afghanistan.”
Sen. John McCain of Arizona took it one step further in using the phrase.
“No one wants American boots on the ground,” said McCain. “Nor will there be American boots on the ground, because there would be an impeachment of the president if they did that.”
Part of Obama’s problem is that the “Arab Spring” led to strife in several Mideast countries and resulted in serious destabilization of several countries, such as Egypt and Syria.
Sadly, as the violence spread, it led to an undefined and even contradictory U.S. foreign and military policy in the region, particularly in humanitarian terms.
So unlike Libya, where the mere threat of “civilian causalities” resulted in the establishment of a NATO “no fly zone” and the ultimate downfall of Muammar al-Gaddafi, in Syria, the Obama Administration chose instead to ignore the slaughter of tens of thousands of Syrians and a million refugees to avoid the ire of Assad’s benefactors, Iran and Russia.
So while thousands of innocents were slaughtered by “conventional” weapons used by both the regime and the rebels, the president drew a ridiculous red line, defining the use of chemical weapons by Assad as the trigger for U.S. military action.
Then, when that line got crossed, Obama started talking in terms of “proportions” and “boots on the ground.”
Here’s the real problem: War involves serious acts of aggression.
Any engagement of American military power in Syria, particularly drone and cruise missile strikes, is an act of war, limited or not, whether troops are actually deployed or not.
Playing semantic games is proving very dangerous to U.S. security and prestige and even threatens our democracy.
It’s time to reboot our military lingo to frame our discussion of foreign and military policy, as faulty as it is, in truthful terms.
Let’s call our “limited” continuous fighting, with or without troops, around the world what it really is — World War.
3 comments
Mitchell Livingston
September 12, 2013 at 12:01 am
Steve:
I initially did not support the US attacking Syria for 3 reasons:
1-The lack of diplomacy that had yet to be employed.
2-I wanted to see the results of the UN inspections regardless of whether they appotioned guilt.
3-The reslease of public evidence implicating Syria had not been evident.
That was my initial thinking. Then Putin gets the Syrians to agree to turn over their chemical stockpiles (at least potentially). Obama agrees to negotiate, so that takes away my objection for a lack of diplomacy. Obviously the threat of military intervention gave the United States some leverage in forcing a potential diplomatic alternative. If we were not contemplating military action there would be no offer on the table. I am quite certain that the Syrian’s would not just organically decide one day to turn over their chemical stockpiles.
Additionaly the fact that Syria is admitting to pocessing these weapons lends more credibility to the administrations case that Assad was the guilty party in conducting the recent chemical attacks.
So what about the chemical weapons? Well if you are a civillian it probably doesn’t matter to you if you are in peril from bombs, guns or gas. It’s all awful. And yes, chemical weapons are not new, and we could certainly chronologize a long history of their use. But the fact that they are being employed in a country that is already so destabilized from civil war, in an area that has seen so much turbulence, and one that is strategically important to the world for many geo-political and economic reasons, raises the stakes in this circumstance to an unacceptable level. The administration in response tried to proffer a nuanced military response. Strike Syria’s chemical producing and military infrastructure to remove or deter the Syrian’s from using these weapons in the future. Then go home. Now that doesn’t sit well with many people on both sides of the aisle.
There are numerous slippery slope arguments that this will drag us into a larger protracted conflict.
So would there be a Syrian response to a US attack? I tend to doubt it. The Syrian army has it’s hands full battling numerous rebel groups. Presumably after a US strike they will be in a weakened position. Certainly in no position to take on the US. And taking on Israel would be a loser for them also. They know this. This is why they are agreeing to turn over their chemical weapons. Because a strike probably takes out a good chunk of their conventional arsenal. Without that, the Assad regime will collapse.
But don’t we want Assad out? Yes and no. Which rebel group will step into to the void? Does Syria become divided into multiple states? Nobody knows. Ckearly Obama and the American people do not want to get involved in any part of that conflict outside of diplomacy (which has to date been unsuccesful). So Obama divised a limited military action.
While we can and should debate the effacacy of such a strike, it is alarming to hear all the ridiculous criticism coming from the President’s critics. Confused, muddled, incoherent and on and on and on. Actually the policy is quite clear. Remove the gas. No more chemical attacks, and we don’t want to get mired down in a ground war. What’s muddled about that? Nothing. Will it work? Maybe. As I said the Syrian’s and the Russian’s seem to think it will.
Is it moral? That depends on how we carry it out and what the civillian casualties will be versus the potential risk of future chemical attacks. Is it in our national interest? I would argue yes, even though there is no imminent threat to the US. Chemical gas being utilized in a destabilized environment with multiple terrorist groups trying to unseat the government could pose extremely serious risks to the US and the world. Particularly as I would argue in this region of the world
Putting forth a prima facie case for this kind of action is not easy. Figuring out Syria is like solving a Rubiks cube. You just can’t get all the sides to line up. In attempting to put forth a military response the admisitration did put on a confusing public face. But this was due more to the circumstance of the situation rather than the clarity of the administration. Obama has proven to be capable in handling military logistic decision making. We succeeded in removing Bin Laden, Ghadafi and numerous Al-Quadi. We are out of Iraq and leaving Afghanistan. Our our actions perfect? Of course not. War is messy. But this President has shown strategic competence. So while their process make look at times confused their strategic goals are frequently met. messy their product is achievable. And if a negotiation brings about a chemical free Syria over time Obama will come out of this getting exactly what he set out for. So what’s so wrong with that?
George gerson
September 12, 2013 at 11:39 am
Why do we perceive ourselves as the only peacemaker? Why do we delegitimization the efforts of Russia and China? I seem to remember us arming Iranians to kill Iraqis and then arming Iraqis to kill Iranians. What about the Turks, The Kurds, The Serbians, etc. The U.S. is a military industrial complex. Where were we during Uganda’s civil war, South Africa’s civil war, Rhodesia’s civil war, India and Pakistan, Tibet and China, etc. aren’t all crimes against humanity unjust? Nigeria’s uprisings…
We should welcome the involvement of other superpowers trying to end war.
The threat of a veto in the U.N. has been dramatically reduced now that Russia is involved.
I, as a veteran, am not willing to risk one American life in Syria or any where in the Middle East. There have been thousands of years of conflicts in the region and I believe, long after The U.S. is relegated to the dust bin of history, there will be more.
We ascAmericans are unique because we are a people of every nation, every culture, and every religion(or no religion at all). All our citizens are recognized as equals under our law.
I do not see the warmongers volunteering their children and grandchildren to our military and risking their lives in conflict.
Finally, I believe the President has made a positive decision with regards to diplomacy.
I am not alone.
Hopefully the Syrians will comply. Time will tell.
War must always be a last resort no matter how limited.
james barteld
September 17, 2013 at 9:57 am
The U.S. has given billions to Jordan , Saudi Arabia , Israel and others in arms and aid .where are they ? Let the U.S. suffer the repercussions ? After Assad Who do we back ? Our record since WW2 has been a disaster. Making mistake after mistake has gotten us nowhere .
Comments are closed.