The drumbeats of war can be heard in Washington, and this time the beats are not emanating from that cowboy from Texas who was so roundly criticized by the world, but from President Obama himself. From the community organizer-come-President who won a Nobel Peace Prize before he had been in office 9 months but who had been nominated before he had been in office 30 days.
It's curious that the reasons for going to war in 2013 call to mind that old quotation from Casey Stengel, "deja vu all over again." A Muslim country has weapons of mass destruction that are a danger to all peace-loving peoples. These weapons are immoral and in contradiction to international standards. The dictator even used them on his own people, for heaven's sake! The parallels with the situation in 2003 with that cowboy former President are eerie. The contradictions are startling; Secretary John Kerry pushing for war, while this was the same fellow who so loudly decried war for the same reasons back in 2004.
But harping on the war drums is not my purpose here. It's to note that American involvements in military escapades without clear objectives are likely to experience mission creep, and that the American public should prepare themselves for catastrophe.
Vietnam: the Vietnam war began under very similar circumstances to Syria. A civil war was brewing; it was clear which side would produce a more democratic, free, and peaceful government; and the USA began its involvement providing aid and military adivsors. 10 years and 50,000 lives later, we had a full-fledged war that angered the world, unalterably changed the USA, and, ultimately, did not thwart the bloodshed that America had tried to avert. Vietnamese Communists, the ultimate victors after America fought the war with one hand tied behind its back, inflicted misery and murdered tens of thousands after America withdrew.
Beirut: the role of Americans as peacekeepers had now come into vogue. After the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, 1400 American Marines joined 3000 European troops to keep the peace. Then began a familiar pattern; while no single country could be blamed, suicide bombings from Muslim extremists began happening with alarming frequency, sponsored behind the scenes by state agents such as Iran. No doubt they were emboldened by rules of engagement that required Marines to carry ammunition on their belts, and not in their guns, so as to assure the population they were not warlike. First they bombed the American Embassy, in April 1983, then the Marine barracks, in October. 241 Marines died along with 57 Frenchmen. Rather than fight back, America withdrew. Osama bin Laden was later quoted as saying he was convinced of the decline of American power because our soldiers were weak, and we fled after loss of life.
Mogadishu: this is the well-known story of Black Hawk Down. Another civil war, and another American President (President George H.W. Bush) who sent our bravest men out to do peacekeeping, e.g., police work. But mission creep was inevitable and, when warlord Mohammed Farrah Aidid attacked the peacekeepers the United Nations (!) authorized fighting in return. This duty fell, of course, not on the Europeans, but on American Special Forces. America's President, now Bill Clinton, ordered an assault and 18 of America's bravest died fighting thousands of Somalians. What made the outcome worse was politically correct decisions by the Administration -- dual chains of command (US and UN), lack of ground assault forces, inadequate numbers of troops. American bodies were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. The mission had not been accomplished. America looked weak again. Aidid was alive and mocking the USA for another 15 years.
Kosovo: this military operation did not end in fiasco for the USA, but it began as a humanitarian operation and experienced significant mission creep. Among the many lessons from this operation were:
- Low-risk, incremental air campaigns cannot win a war or achieve peace;
- Low-risk, high-altitude air campaigns cannot achieve humanitarian objectives; and
- If the USA takes sides in a civil war, it should EXPECT that ground forces will eventually be necessary to overcome a determined adversary.
What is the caution here? It's to be clear about our short-term and long-term objectives. If we lob missiles into Syria, we need to expect that within 12 months we will be sending ground troops. Initially, our political leaders will not be asking for such, and will not acknowledge such, but it will be the truth. Because if the initial bombing is ineffective, as it will be, then the same impetus that had us bomb will ask, "if you're really committed to taking down Assad, then America will do more." It will happen piecemeal, like in Vietnam, but it will happen. And we will be in Syria for years, unless we repeat the mistakes of Beirut and Somalia and run with out tail between our legs after the fighting gets tough and the barefoot insurgents show more guts than our political leaders.
And a likely outcome will be a larger Middle East war because Iran has had suicidal intentions for years, and would view this as their opportunity to carry them out.
This would also be the end of Obama's Presidency as one of "unparalleled outreach
to the Muslim world." The entire Muslim world would be fighting us and the new motto might as well be, "unparalleled hostility
from the Muslim world." At such a moment Obama would become indistinguishable from George W. Bush.
Better give back that Nobel Peace Prize, Mr. President, before the Norwegians demand it back.
