The pushback from readers continues:
Words are important, so you should use them carefully. You call the proposed action in Syria “war.” Okay, I understand the point that weeks of bombing could be considered a war even though it’s not a traditional ground invasion. No need to quibble there. But you then recklessly compare Syria to Iraq and Afghanistan as if they are close to the same thing (“Or, when push comes to shove, are you actually weaker than McCain and Clinton – and your legacy will be not doomed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but doomed wars in Syria and Iran?”)
Let’s set aside that nothing has happened in Iran (or Syria) yet. Let’s assume the President gets what he’s asking for in Syria, which is 60 to 90 days of strikes with no troops on the ground. How is that anything – ANYTHING – like Iraq and Afghanistan? Both were full-scale ground invasions costing hundreds of billions of dollars (are we over a trillion?), thousands of American lives, and hundreds of thousands of lives in country. Make the argument you have – that there is no reason to think these limited strikes will accomplish anything – not these stupid rants.
I remember when our entry into Afghanistan would just be for a few months. Ditto Iraq. I can go back right now and read posts assuming just that. And we have boots on the ground in Syria already, as even the president has now conceded. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan was a “traditional ground invasion” either. The first was conducted with minimal forces alongside the Northern Alliance; the second was accomplished with far fewer troops than required because, yes, we’d be home by Christmas. No one in power anticipated a ten-year occupation. So why do we assume that having entered this awful conflict, we can so easily walk out of it?
I’m sorry but if I’m asked to defend another “this-will-be-over-quickly-no-troops-on-the-ground-ever” war, I have every right to say no. Nothing in my reader’s emails suggest any possible reactions to this war, as if this is entirely a static intellectual exercize. It isn’t. Our opponents can act as well – with a round of possible terrorist attacks in the US, Assad’s forces becoming even more brutal, Iran being forced to support its client state, emboldening its most reactionary elements, attacks on American military targets in the region, and so on. Any single incident could trigger a wider conflict. A little perusal of how the Crimean war broke out would be a useful reminder that what politicians say will happen is usually not what happens, and what they intend can be the last thing they actually accomplish.
Now, of course, not acting could also trigger a conflict, since Israel may infer from the Congress’s refusal on Syria that there is no appetite for war with Iran either, and attack Iran alone. But I doubt Israel will launch a war unilaterally, because it would not do the job. And, besides, at some point, in a democracy, the people must support – preferably overwhelmingly – any war we decide to enter. They don’t in Britain or the US.
Another reader:
Your argument against a Syria strike seems to amount to the assumption that it is an “open-ended” war due to the inherent unpredictability of war and the fact that we can’t guarantee that future circumstances wouldn’t lead to escalation. But by that definition, all war is open-ended. Are you therefore saying that military force is never justified (short of, say, a direct attack on the United States)? If not, I’d like to hear you elaborate more as to when, if ever, a military intervention would be sufficiently close-ended to meet your standard.
Right now, with respect to America’s global interests, I see no war worth fighting. That includes preventing Iran from deterring Israel’s nukes. Another quotes me:
“My point is that foreign policy is not about going around the world preventing bad.” Wow. This is similar to the “America First” arguments used to stay out of WWII and the arguments used to ignore Cambodia and, of course, Rwanda. The US can not be the world’s cop, and I get that. But holy crap – get ready to handle more pictures of dead children and just keep saying “bummer, but we can’t concern ourselves with it.”
I will and have. I opposed intervention in Rwanda and Somalia. Somalia is very instructive. Just a humanitarian mission, which became a war, which became a nightmare. And if only we had only ignored Cambodia instead of waging Kissinger’s vast and vile war crimes against the people of that poor country. Another reader:
I am struck by the lack of discussion of the similarities between the international community’s failed response to the 1995 Srebrenica massacre and the current situation in Syria.
By using chemical weapons, the regime in Syria has indicated that it will use whatever depraved means at its disposal to carry out its policies. There is no reason to believe that the 8/21 attack will not be repeated, perhaps on a larger scale. The regime has a the capability to do so and appears likely to do so unless checked by outside forces.
This strikes me as similar to the lead up to the 1995 massacre. The international community sat by and watched the events unfold in Srebrenica over a period of weeks, and did nothing to intervene, even though it had the capability to stop Serbian armor and artillery that was used to carry out the massacre (actually a series of smaller massacres). The international community’s inaction in 1995 is rightfully remembered as a grave error – an error that should not be repeated in Syria. The regime has “crossed a line” and it should be prevented from going further over the line so that the 1,400 dead do not become the 8,000 dead from 1995. This seems like a blindingly obvious lesson from history to me.
If you genuinely believe that Syria is like Bosnia, fine. I don’t. Europe – even in the Balkans – is a repository of some basic humanitarian norms. The Middle East isn’t – and never has been. And how many people would the Syrian opposition murder if they won this war? They are talking openly about “liquidating” the Alawites. Here’s a little taste of who we’d be supporting:
The Syrian rebels posed casually, standing over their prisoners with firearms pointed down at the shirtless and terrified men. The prisoners, seven in all, were captured Syrian soldiers. Five were trussed, their backs marked with red welts. They kept their faces pressed to the dirt as the rebels’ commander recited a bitter revolutionary verse.
“For fifty years, they are companions to corruption,” he said. “We swear to the Lord of the Throne, that this is our oath: We will take revenge.” The moment the poem ended, the commander, known as “the Uncle,” fired a bullet into the back of the first prisoner’s head. His gunmen followed suit, promptly killing all the men at their feet.
Reader dissent continues into my most recent long post:
“Obama’s case for war is disintegrating fast. And his insistence on a new war – against much of the world and 60 percent of Americans – is easily his biggest misjudgment since taking office.” Really? His case for war? You should be ashamed for saying this repeatedly, like some back bench Republican thinking if only I say it enough, it just might become the truth. He is looking to go to war with Syria as much as he has already declared war on Pakistan by invading it and killing OBL. Has he declared war on Pakistan? Not that I know of. He had a specific intent, and he carried it out. I trust him with this. Yeah, much more than all of you naysayers combined.
It would be a lot better to let the tyrants of the world know that among the undecideds and the “tired of war” criers, there are some who truly will take you to the woodshed for doing something so extraordinarily dreadful to kill over 1400 including 430 children gasping and dying. Will you be saying the same platitudes if Assad dropped a mini nuke on these people – either on purpose or on accident?
Don’t let your enormous bad judgement on the Iraq war cloud your perspective.
If Obama were organizing a meticulously planned and sourced operation of a few men to capture and kill the mass murderer of Americans in Syria, I might agree. He is not. And the resolution Obama sent to the Senate would give him lee-way to do whatever he wanted with respect to chemical weapons. That proposed resolution – and Kerry’s gaffe in the Senate hearing – was clearly open to a broad conflict in the Middle East. As it would have to be. Once you set a train of events in motion, you have to be responsible for the outcome. And we will be.
The Dish 