"Even in matters of self-preservation, no policy is pursued (by the Western democracies) even ten or fifteen years at a time." — Winston S. Churchill
It appears we are about to make war on Syria. Why? To reestablish President Obama's lost credibility? To punish Syrian President Bashar Assad for using chemical weapons on his people?
There are only two valid reasons for going to war:
-- To guarantee that Assad's chemical weapons can never be used against us or our allies; and
-- To destroy Iran's principal ally, and to send a full warning to Iran that, if they don't immediately abandon the nuclear program so those weapons are never used against us or our allies, the same or worse will befall them.
If America should have learned any lesson in Asian wars since WWII, it is this: The enemy will fight until we get tired and go home -- if he is able.
These two goals require more than a proportional response; they require the will to win. Winning means you destroy the enemy to such an extent that he has no ability to continue the fight. It also requires doing whatever is necessary to ensure that victory doesn't become a five- or 20-year armistice. That will mean killing great numbers of civilians.
Aug. 21, 2012 President Obama, said, "We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling in the hands of the wrong people. We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a 'red line' for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemicals moving around or being utilized.
"We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the area that that's a 'red line' for us. And that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons or the use of chemical weapons."
Secretary of State John Kerry has told the world that that red line has been crossed, and the U. S. will make make "limited" war on Syria. But what is limited?
President Clinton in 1998 went after a "pharmaceutical plant" in Sudan, killing one, in response to attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania which killed 244, including 12 Americans. The reprisal told Osama bin Laden that America was not serious, and did nothing to deter him from the 9/11/01 attacks. Sending cruise missiles after an aspirin factory in Syria, may satisfy the president's need to prove his credibility, but it won't solve the Syrian chemical weapon problem, or the Iran nuclear problem.
If this is what President Obama has in mind, it will be meaningless and ineffective. President George W. Bush believed we could fight a limited war, topple Saddam Hussein and turn Iraq into a 21st century democracy. History proved him wrong. He believed we could crush the Taliban in Afghanistan and create a stable government. That hasn't happen either.
In the Middle East, the only way to win, is to obliterate the enemy in a short war of extermination. A short war because America doesn't have the stomach to fight limited war indefinitely. Mr. Obama's withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan prove Churchill was right.
But could a war of obliteration or extermination ever be justified without America first being subjected to a catastrophic attack which threatens its very existence?
I don't think so. Americans obliterate enemies only as a last resort — unless we become like our enemies.
Who are we going to hit with our cruise missiles? President Bashar Al-Assad and his inner-circle? The Syrian military? Hezbollah? Iran's Republican Guard "volunteers?" What if they survive the attack? What if they shoot back? What if Syria's Air Force attacks our naval units? What if Iran, in retaliation, closes the Strait of Hormuz? What if they attack Israel? What if Russia intervenes?
Before the President acts to punish Syria for crossing his "red line," these are grave questions that America must ask and answer. Our proportional response could turn into WWIII.
I am not willing to go to war to restore Mr. Obama's squandered credibility, or to keep Assad from killing his people. But if the American people (through their members of Congress) vote that war is necessary to guarantee destruction of Syria's chemical weapons, and/or to end Iran's nuclear ambitions, Congress should declare war.
But we must make war in a way that absolutely guarantees that Syrian chemicals and Iranian nukes can never be used against us or our allies. If you choose to use that quantum of force, you'd better be willing to kill as many Syrians or Iranians, military and civilian, as it takes to get the job done!
Only in that way can you make unmistakable to Iran and North Korea America is deadly serious.
Posted Online: Sept. 03, 2013, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea
No comments:
Post a Comment