What Difference Will It Make?

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  Gentlemen, with the current news cycle buzz about Syria, I ask, “What difference will it make?”

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  That’s a clever play on Hillary’s surrender to mendacity with her statement, “What difference does it make?”

Old Gadfly:  You both are thinking on a high plane.  The segue between (a) Hillary’s stand that accountability is irrelevant in the Benghazi incident and (b) Obama’s “decision” to apply military action in Syria is an important measure of the apparent recklessness of this Administration.  IM’s question is important:  What difference will US military action in Syria make?

 

IM:  Context is essential for understanding what is at stake.  Remember, the most recent issue dealt with funding the federal government.  That issue reaches a climax on September 30—exactly three weeks after Congress reconvenes.  With all the debate about Congressional authorization to attack Syria, there may be little time to debate a continuing resolution, let alone address the looming monster that threatens our domestic economy—Obamacare.  In our conversation on August 17, we strongly advocated not funding Obamacare and allowing a shutdown of the government, if Obama vetoed such an approach.

Old Gadfly:  Good point, IM.  It will be very difficult for America to help in other parts of the world if we lose our own economic security. 

IM:  Let’s look at the broader context.  Despite over 100,000 civilian casualties, and the hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees in Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordon, not to mention those who have traveled further north into Europe, since Obama’s red line was declared over a year ago in August 2012, he now “decides” for military action and “decides” to seek Congressional authorization for the military action he has already “decided” to carry out.  Sounds pretty “decisive” to me.

AM:  Despite the glib rhetoric, Obama’s posturing is nothing but pure political theater to draw attention away from other unresolved issues here in America.  Besides Obamacare and Benghazi, we still have not resolved the IRS targeting of conservative groups, the Department of Justice harassment of journalists and news organizations, and other issues that are being slow-rolled by the “most transparent Administration” in the history of America.

Old Gadfly:  Yet, Obama frames an attack on Syria as a moral imperative because chemical weapons were used in violation of international norms.  This sounds logical, does it not?

AM:  Not surprisingly, Obama gets a pass on his own violations of international norms by “deciding” to allow a battlefield execution of bin Laden and “deciding” to assassinate American citizens with drones and without due process.  These actions have little to do with justice.  They are actions on behalf of an individual who is demonstrating the corruptness of near absolute power.

IM:  Obama is also surrounded by loyal lieutenants.  To generate public sentiment in support of Obama’s “decision” to strike Syria, Robert Gibbs amazingly advanced a false narrative that went unchallenged this morning on Meet the Press.  He celebrated Obama’s “decision” on Syria in comparison to Bush’s decision to use military force in Iraq.  According to Gibbs, Obama’s decision was “deliberate” and supported by “rationale,” unlike Bush’s, which by implication was not deliberate and lacked rationale.  Gibbs also claimed that, unlike Bush, Obama is seeking a “united front” and “strength in a broad collation.”

AM:  Let’s examine more closely Gibbs’ unchallenged assertions.  First, Bush’s decision was very deliberate and clearly justified by rationale.  While there is some debate whether Hussein gassed Kurds during the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s, he did possess weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and he used them.  Yet, Bush is criticized for using WMD as a justification for the use of military force.  Second, Kerry presented a case for military action in Syria based only on WMD.  Sound familiar?  In Syria, Assad is accused of killing 1,400 people with WMD.  While there is evidence of WMD, it is still unclear who was responsible for its actual use.  Which case is more compelling?  I’ll tell you which one:  the one advanced by the club to which one is a member.    

IM:  Gadfly, didn’t you spend some time in the Middle East?

Old Gadfly:  In late December 1990, I deployed to Saudi Arabia as a senior officer in support of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and later to Turkey in support of Operation Provide Comfort (saving Kurdish refugees in the northern Iraqi mountains, pushed there by Hussein’s military forces).  During the flight to Saudi, I read a book by Judith Miller and Laurie Mylroie, Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf.  The authors, one from The New York Times and the other a professor at Harvard, presented a heavily documented account of Hussein’s efforts to produce WMD, to brutalize the Iraqi people, and to establish hegemony in the Middle East.  Later, when running the Air Force Operations Center at the Pentagon in the mid-1990s, I daily watched and reported Hussein’s defiant actions, heavily constrained by expensive no fly zones in the north and the south—this expensive effort lasted for over a decade with no end in sight.

IM:  So, it appears that you have first-hand impressions of the threat Hussein posed.

Old Gadfly:  While WMD is the threat that appeared to resonate in the public narrative leading up to our use of military force in 2003, the threat of alleged WMD represented only one of 12 justifications (or rationale) for the use of force in a bipartisan Congressional  Joint Resolution that was approved before any commitment of military forces.  The Joint Resolution is known as Public Law 107-243, “Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq Resolution of 2002.”  In the House, 215 Republicans and 81 Democrats voted in favor of while six Republicans and 126 Democrats (including Congresswoman Pelosi) voted against the legislation.  In the Senate, 48 Republicans and 29 Democrats (including Senator Reid) voted in favor of while one Republican and 22 Democrats voted against the legislation.  In other words, the resolution passed by a significant majority of bipartisan votes. Thus, after being armed with a bipartisan Joint Resolution of Congress to use military force in Iraq, Bush acted to remove a tyrant who was far more brutal than Libya’s Gaddafi, an action done without Congressional authorization.

AM:  Further, the momentum for ousting Hussein was far from a George W. Bush initiative.  Here is a March 2, 2000 speech by Senator John Kerry, documented in the Congressional Record:

Mr. President, I want to call to the attention of my colleagues an issue that is not being raised in the otherwise informative presidential primary campaigns. It is not a theoretical issue, nor is it an issue concerning budgetary decisions.

Rather, it is an issue which sends American pilots on combat missions almost daily. It is an issue which throughout the last decade has cost the lives of hundreds of American and thousands of soldiers and civilians of other nationalities. It is an issue which threatens the peace and security of some of our closest allies, and which, if not solved, could threaten the United States with weapons of mass destruction. It is an issue which starves and holds captive twenty-two million people in conditions of unparalleled terror of their government. It is an issue which we have failed to deal with decisively, and that failure calls into question our dedication to the freedom we prize so highly for ourselves.

The issue is the continuing rule of Saddam Hussein. Nine years after the United States led a coalition to eject Iraqi forces and liberate Kuwait, Saddam continues to brutalize his people, threaten his neighbors, and develop weapons of mass destruction--earlier versions of which he used on neighboring states, on Israel, and on his own people. The good news is that sanctions have weakened his military, and his political support base has shrunk to his immediate family. All of mountainous northern Iraq and large swathes of southern Iraq are free of his control. Nonetheless, he continues to rule the central part of the country and, as Jim Hoagland pointed out in today's Washington Post, Saddam is likely to outlast yet another American President. (p. S1150)

Old Gadfly:  Thank you, AM.  As I recall, Kerry was not an isolated advocate for regime change.  Many elected officials, Democrat and Republican, were concerned about Hussein’s hegemonic intentions and WMD efforts.  So, G. W. Bush “inherited” momentum to accomplish regime change in Iraq.

AM:  Yes, even under the Clinton Administration, there was a Joint Resolution of Congress to carry out regime change in Iraq.  Public Law 105-338, known as the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998,” was signed into law by President Clinton on October 31, 1998.  The legislation was a bipartisan effort with 360 (202 Republicans, 157 Democrats) in favor of and 38 (nine Republicans, 29 Democrats) against in the House of Representatives; the Senate provided unanimous consent. 

AM:  And when Bush “decided” to attack Hussein, did he “go it alone”?

Old Gadfly:  No.  Under Bush’s leadership, 25 other nations joined the effort to oust Hussein.  Obama, on the other hand, is willing to “go it alone.”  So far, the United Nations and no other country (with the possible exception of France) have expressed a willingness to be part of a coalition.  Also, unlike the minority 42% who support military action in Syria, Gallup indicated a 70% approval rating for Bush’s decision to attack Hussein.  Incidentally, following the 9/11 attack, Bush also had approval ratings at 90%. 

IM:  As the Iraq war drug on, however, Bush found himself fighting a two-front war:  on one side were the jihadist insurgents; and on the home front was the American political opposition.  While Bush deliberately commenced actions based on solid rationale and bipartisan Congressional support, strong public support, and a broad coalition, public sentiment was masterfully reengineered between 2003 and 2006 by progressive factions (politicians, media, academia, and Hollywood) for political objectives.  This accounted for the major sea change in both houses of Congress during the 2006 elections.  During this period, Copernican drones were so powerfully trained how to think that today most Americans still blame Bush for today’s economic woes, despite strong empirical evidence to the contrary:  recall our conversations on August 16, 2012 and August 27, 2012. 

Old Gadfly:  And, unlike the politically expedient execution of bin Laden, Saddam Hussein was eventually captured, arrested, and tried in a court of law, consisting of his citizen-peers. 

IM:  I think Washington’s current cohort of politicians seem especially cautious about the notion of regime change.  This is why Obama claims an attack will be limited and does not involve regime change.

Old Gadfly:  Then, what can be gained by military action in Syria?

AM:  What I understand is that air and cruise missile attacks would focus on Syria’s military forces, such as aircraft, air defense, logistics, and so forth in an attempt to level the playing field between the Syrian military and the rebels.

Old Gadfly:  So, more killing would take place, with equal casualties on both sides?

IM:  I suppose that is inevitable.

Old Gadfly:  Then what?  What eventual outcome might Obama expect?

AM:  The cynic in me suspects this is a necessary and sufficient distraction to get progressives through the 2014 election cycle.

Old Gadfly:  What about Syria and the Middle East?  What are the potential unintended consequences of military action?

AM:  Remember, it only took one bullet from a Serb radical to precipitate the First World War, and arguably America’s aviation gas, steel, and iron embargo against Japan led to the attack on Pearl Harbor.  Regarding outcomes of military action in Syria, here are some possibilities from my perspective:

·         Russia and Iran become more aggressively involved with the possibility of escalating proxy wars;

·         Other Arab nations are bound by regional proximity to align themselves with ideological similarities (i.e., Islamist ideology); but this gets complicated because,

o   while Saudi Arabia might support US action in Syria, it is because Saudis are Sunnis and Iranians are Shiites;

o   the Hezbollah faction in Syria and Lebanon has ties to Iran;

o   it also appears the rebel forces in Syria are predominantly jihadists, to include al Qaeda members, who also are Sunnis

o   If Hamas gets involved, their roots are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood

·         Israel is a potentially stabilizing force for regional governments, given the reality it will defend itself with nuclear weapons if necessary;

·         Israel is a potentially destabilizing force for jihadists wanting further instability in the region;

·         Middle East oil will become a critical strategic lever--there will be a huge price for access with major ripple effects in the international economy

·         Second, third, and fourth order effects will represent the cascading failures and impact of a regional and then an international system that rapidly moves from its relative equilibrium to chaos.

Old Gadfly:  Most of those outcomes are not constructive.  What would you recommend?

AM:  Unilateral military action is ludicrous at this point in time for two major reasons.  First, there is no direct and compelling national vital interest in Syria.  Second, the conditions are not right.  This situation requires adult leadership and the coup d’oeil that comes only from solid, relevant experience and training.  Community organizing is a quantum leap from the high stakes of geopolitics.  Obama’s focus has always been to centralize political power, not to use political power for a greater good.  Obamacare is a classic example.  Boasted as a banner achievement, Obamacare is nothing more than a very costly means for centralizing power.  

IM:  I find it ironic that the face Obama is parading around DC and the Sunday talk shows to drum up support for military action is his Secretary of State.  Where is the Secretary of Defense? 

AM:  Once a decision was made to commit military forces in Iraq, Rumsfeld, as the Secretary of Defense, was the face parading around DC and the talk shows.  Rumsfeld was also successfully targeted, frozen, personalized, and polarized as a component of reengineering public sentiment (see our past discussion on Saul Alinksy’s Rule number 13).  I think the picture of Kerry advocating military action is characteristic of an incompetent and amateurish Administration.  An entire year has passed when more diplomatic efforts on the part of Kerry’s predecessor would have better prepared the United States to deal with current circumstances.  Of course, such diplomatic efforts would have been a logical extension of a reasoned foreign policy vision on behalf of the President and Commander-in-Chief.  Unfortunately, Obama has no foreign policy vision.  Elliott Abrams provided support for such a claim with his brilliant analysis of Obama’s foreign policy in Commentary Magazine.

IM:  There seemed little interest in achieving accountability after Benghazi, a visible foreign policy failure.  Hillary eulogized the four dead Americans with:  what difference does it make?  A year later with over 100,000 Syrian casualties and over a million refugees, it’s now time to make a difference?

Old Gadfly:  Even though there is no clearly defined outcome for US military action in Syria, unless things change, such action will make a political difference—it will keep Americans distracted from numerous scandals that remain unsettled under this Administration.