While events in Syria where civilians and children are being killed by Assad's murderous regime are
horrifying, a U.S. intervention may not solve the problem. Indeed, it could make matters worse and harm far more innocents. One need only look at the debacle in Iraq to recall that American intervention cost far, far more Iraqi lives than Saddam Husein at his most murderous. Compounding Barack Obama's position is that (i) the UN has not approved intervention, (ii) now the UK is having second thoughts on foreign military involvement, and (iii) the American public is not supportive of the move, most likely because they still have the disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan fresh in their minds. A piece in
Politico looks at the situation and some of the pros and cons of American military intervention. Here are excerpts:
President Barack Obama had hoped for a quick, convincing strike on
Syria, but growing opposition and Great Britain’s stunning rejection of
the attack has thrust him into the uncomfortable position of go-it-alone
hawk.
Just how Obama, whose career sprung from the ashes of
George W. Bush’s Iraq policy, got to this extraordinary moment in his
presidency is a tale of good intentions, seat-of-the-pants planning and,
above all, how a cautious commander-in-chief became imprisoned by a
promise.
Obama seems likely to bull ahead with air attacks
despite an impact and popularity that will be, at best, limited — an
unsavory outcome marginally better than packing up his Tomahawks and
going home, which would deal a humbling blow to U.S. prestige and
embolden the Assad regime. It’s a dilemma first-term Obama — who warned author Bob Woodward in
2010 that “once the dogs of war are unleashed, you don’t know where
[they are] going to lead” — was careful to avoid.
Obama, tethered to his August 2012 “red line” pronouncement on
Assad’s use of chemical weapons and eager to shed his lead-from-behind
image, now runs “the risk of looking weak any way this turns out,” in
the words of one former adviser who cited the limited impact of any
missiles-only strike.
“Obama’s caution has served him well in the past, but he’s completely
abandoned it, and he’s paying for it now,” said Daniel Kurtzer, who
served as Bill Clinton’s ambassador to Egypt and George W. Bush’s
ambassador to Israel.
“On two occasions, the rhetoric has gotten ahead of the policy-making
process. Once when the president talked about chemical weapons being a
game changer and a red line,” Kurtzer said. “Then [this week] when Obama
and [Secretary of State John] Kerry made remarks that point clearly in
the direction of some kind of military action — even though he hasn’t
decided what he’s going to do and he hasn’t found a coalition.”
Ari Fleischer, Bush’s press secretary at the start of the Iraq War, couldn’t help but gloat late Thursday when the British House of Commons rejected
Prime Minister David Cameron’s call for airstrikes. “Bush’s attack on
Iraq was multilateral. O[bama], who attacked Bush for being a
unilateralist, will make a unilateral attack on Syria,” he tweeted.
Opponents of a strike, who warn of unintended consequences that could
precipitate a regional conflict, have cheered the delay. Nonetheless, it
could force Obama to up the intensity of his attack, according to
experts.
“The ghosts of Iraq haunt this administration very much in their
decision making. It’s why they’re reluctant to become too deeply
involved in an expansive mission in Syria,” Kahl said. “They’ve been
reluctant to use military force overtly in Syria, but it’s not because
they don’t have a [military] plan.”
[C]ongressional leaders in both parties described Obama’s strategy to
explain the rationale for the strike as inadequate and improvisational. . . . . Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) — an Obama ally and former Democratic National
Committee chairman — told CNN Thursday that the administration needed
the “full weight “of congressional leadership before signing off on an
attack, joining about 150 members of both chambers to raise questions
about an attack.
The House of Commons vote had a sins-of-the-father quality, hobbling a
pair of leaders all too aware of the legacies of their predecessors
George W. Bush and Tony Blair, who spearheaded the deeply unpopular Iraq
invasion.
“Isn’t the real reason we’re here today, is not because of the horror
of these weapons and the horror exists – but because the American
president foolishly drew a red line and because of his position now,
he’s going to attack or face humiliation?” asked Labour MP Paul Flynn
during a raucous Thursday debate closely monitored by the White House.
It's a huge mess that may put American lives again at stake.
No comments:
Post a Comment