Get PJ Media on your Apple

Works and Days

Is The War to Save Face or Save Lives?

August 29th, 2013 - 7:36 am

In 2006-8, Assad was a reformer, worth visiting and cajoling, declared unjustly alienated by a jingoistic Bush administration, and worthy of restoring relations with. And now he is satanic (what did Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry think those army units they saw during their visits were for — parades and pomp? Did they recall his father Hama?). In short, here at home, the outs are in, and the ins are out, and the arguments make the necessary adjustments.

The president cited Iraq yesterday. Let us revisit it for a second. Many of us supported the Iraq War — not in 1998 or before 9/11 when some of the most fiery adherents of regime change were lobbying both Bill Clinton and George Bush for “regime change” — but on the general premise that in a post-9/11 climate, the no-fly-zones and oil embargoes were waning and  a genocidal monster would always resume being a genocidal monster at the heart of regional unrest.

But we remember how after each week of escalating violence, supporters jumped ship. The congressional bipartisan vote to approve action had outlined well the reasons why Saddam should go, some 23 writs, the vast majority of them having nothing to do with WMD. That is not to say that WMD was not hyped by the administration to galvanize support, but only to remind us that Saddam’s genocidal record transcended WMD and by 2003 he had probably killed 10 times more than has Assad so far in his war.

After stockpiles of WMD were not found, did the other 20-something writs (genocide, bounties for suicide bombers, assassination attempts against a former U.S. president, harboring murderous terrorists, etc.?) not apply?

As the occupation went badly, the public’s 75% support for the war dipped below 40%. The stalwarts of the Democratic Party flipped (e.g., John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, etc.) and saw an anti-war stance as critical to the party’s 2006 recovery. Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore became ephemeral media darlings. Someone named Obama emerged, decrying the war, drone bombing, renditions, preventative detentions, and Guantanamo Bay.

Indeed, many conservatives who very early on had wanted the war now claimed that their brilliant three-week war was now someone else’s fouled up years-long occupation, forgetting Matthew Ridgway’s dictum that the only thing worse than fighting a bad war was losing one.

I cite all this to remind the current proponents of action that should we begin hitting the wrong targets, find that Islamists are using our air cover to commit atrocities, discover that the militias are turning postwar Syria into postwar Libya, or find that we are forced to settle up with Hezbollah, Iran, or some other third-party, those now advocating for action most likely will cite administration incompetence as sufficient reasons for why they are withdrawing their support.  I doubt they will sink or swim to the last bomb with Commander-in-Chief Obama.

In short, from what we’ve seen from this administration with its withdrawal dates in Afghanistan, its boasts about getting every single soldier out of Iraq, its deadlines to Iran, its red lines to Syria, its reset with Vladimir Putin, and its euphemistic war on terror, it is simply not up to a sustained air war over Syria, or anything much other than a day or two of lobbying cruise missiles. To think that it is will sorely disappoint present supporters of bombing Assad.

Both the American people and the U.S. Congress already sense that. We should too.

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (7)
All Comments   (7)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
I get it...Joshua
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
Nerve gas shouldn't become just another weapon.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
There's a very real possibility that Obama's Syria will be, in effect, like Alcibiades' Syracuse. Not militarily, but politically and economically.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
"... stopping Assad in 2011 might have been wise..."

I cannot see why. We had no vital interests in Syria (or Jordan or Lebanon or Iraq) in 2011, and we had no reason to get involved. We still have no reason to get involved in 2013. The same was true for Libya and Egypt. The only action we should have taken with Egypt was discontinuation of foreign aid.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
The only winning move here is To Not Play. Because if you think either side will show gratitude if we intervene, you're retarded.
Let them kill each other. The world will be a better place when they're done.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
So, his Oness wants to make a point. OK, Bandar Abbas... sink the Iranian Navy. Or, down the Persian Air Force, in toto. Or, slam Tehran, hard and heavy, Buffs from 50,000 ft.

Or stay home.
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
This is a war to bankrupt the US military, whose competence and respected place in American society is a political obstacle to the consolidation of the welfare state.

There are several aspects to this: degrading the quality of life of enlisted personnel and junior officers,, selling the idea that military force is ineffective
33 weeks ago
33 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All