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.
