We baby boomers are a tired generation… We grew up with ‘Nam. Which ever side we were on during the battle over it here in America, looking back after it was done, …. we all knew "going in" was wrong….
After that experience we thought all war was wrong, and unfortunately took some of that angst out on those who least deserved it: those coming back from the steamy jungles of hell.....
It was against our will that a certain president soon sent Marines into Beirut; what happened then reinforced our belief that all American war was unjustifiable and that all other means must be exhausted to prevent American war from ever happening again.... It was against our will, that we propped up a Nicaragua dictator against some rebels. Against our will, we sold arms to Iran to use for paying for our support for that Nicaragua dictator, since a Congress duly elected by the American people, flatly said no to financing any engagement there.... We still found a way to do it anyway...
.
I remember Senator Rudman, (R-NH) saying at the hearing while addressing Oliver North,... "The American people have the RIGHT to be wrong."
Oliver North had been insisting that even when Americans flatly say NO, one still must do what one deems is necessary, that whatever one deems necessary, is the highest moral truth.
"Sometimes one has to go above the law!"
was actually said by the defense at this hearing. Only one good thing came out of those hearings: we all were introduced to
Fawn Hall.
But then... The Brits quickly regained the Faulklands. Then came Grenada, which went off without a hitch. Then Panama, which was successful and almost painless. Then came General Schwartzkopf. The 4th largest army in the world was routed in hours, and in days, had been completely mopped up. Then came the Balkans. We were on a roll. We'd finally nailed down the successful formula of how to win in battle.
Today we say Iraq is a failure. But that was so-not-so just after the invasion. Inside Baghdad, the pulling down of Saddam's statue, the victory of capturing Saddam, the ability of us to hand out billions of American dollars, initially gave this campaign the luster of looking like another success story...
Until we tried to steal their oil. The standard global rate of dividing oil revenues with a host nation, is that the US gets a 20% cut for the development, and Iraq would get to keep 80% because it is after all, their resource. For example, that is how we deal with Nigeria.
But Brenner announced that we'd flip that to pay for the war, and that Iraq would be allowed to keep 20% because we liked them so much, and we'd only, by our good graces, take the remaining 80% of the revenues. 24 hours after letting that cat out of the bag, the first IED went off under a US military vehicle... Before week was out, the total was in the hundreds.
The luster was gone. We were an invading army, something we have not called ourselves since WWII. We always envisioned ourselves as the policeman who leaves as soon as order is restored...
Afghanistan likewise, got worse. Then Pakistan. Then Yemen. On the diplomatic front instead of doing no harm, .. we could do no good. Then Libya cost us an ambassador who was running guns through Turkey. He shouldn't have been there; it should have been handled by a low level staffer with security clearance.
This baby boomer generation knows that war is wrong. we've lived it; we know from experience. The only time it can be employed successfully, is when:
a) when the whole world is united behind you,
b) you go in and get out, and
c) you have a structure that stays in place long after you are gone.
The only time it goes badly... is every other possible scenario.
Which brings us to Syria. Syria has no importance to anyone. Which is why we let the Russians have them.
People are going to die in Syria if
a): Assad wins, b): the rebels win, or c): no one wins.
The only thing changing upon this wars outcome, is which side will be massacred at war's end. Hence the battle over their very survival over there now.
So by having the US intervene or not, we are choosing which side will get to kill the other after the hostilities die down.
The weakest argument for going in, is that they used chemical weapons. In WWI, the British, French, and Germans all used chemical weapons. Are chemical weapons really that much worse than being burned alive? Or asphyxiated as a bomb blast sucks all the oxygen out of your lungs and the room? Or a milk jug sized piece of jagged metal shrapnel ripping and leaving a hole through your body? Or a mine being stepped on? I'm trying to think why chemical weapons are so much worse, except for the fact that we've been told "they are so much worse"?
A causality is a causality.
We understand "why" some say we should go into Syria. Because if we do not respond to chemical weapons in a big way, someone else will become confident and use theirs. There is only one way to keep the genie inside the bottle, and that is to never leave a opening for it to escape....
It's the same reason "why" one of our beloved School districts back home instituted a policy that suspended, and expelled those who brought weapons to school! Not just guns, but knives too. After all, the argument behind the punishing of Syria, applies to soon-to-become high school felons too.
But, there came a time when the response generated by such a broad-based harsh policy, actually became the crime, You remember the little boy expelled who brought a cake to school, and his grandmother thoughtfully sent a knife knowing teachers usually don't have utensils in their classrooms?. The teacher actually cut the cake, served it, thinking nothing of it.. it was someone higher up, reviewing the situation, who said, "wait, that can be interpreted as a breach of regulations. Let's make an example out of this little boy". He was suspended and could have been expelled, except it eventually became news and public outcry was solidly on his side. Those policy makers were laughed out of town.
Which is why, if you are making this decision, you need to stall. Acting quickly and decisively is equivalent to acting on rumor and innuendo. For time's sake, lets just look at it as if the allegation is true. So for sake of argument assume Syria lied and actually shot those gas cannisters off?
Does a retaliatory military strike create ample enough good will to neutralize this horribly bad act?
Ironically what is best for the US in this situation, is for Assad to stay in power, but then to have a zealous change in heart, to flip and work closely with the USA to get his economy working, to becoming a partner in that region with the US, and to agree to the signing of a treaty with Israel, as did the Egyptians many, many years ago...
What is worse for us, is if the jihadists win, push out the moderates and take over the reform movement (they always do), then go to war with Israel, Jordan and Turkey. Making ourselves into the evil empire will only create more explosions everywhere, flare-ups which would not have occurred had we taken the Jedi way, and used the quiet monetary "Force" in our possession, to make events on the ground turn our way and happen in our favor....
Realistically such a rosy scenario probably can't happen; but if it did, were this to come about, there would be no doubt: the USA would be held in high esteem for achieving the impossible. In this case, the actual cost of failure is so low that trying at least to pursue it, just might be worth the try.
The second point... which all us Viet-namers do well remember, is that you may win every engagement you participate over there in Syria, but you won't win the war at home, and that... will suck all your energy away from every single good thing you plan to do before 2016.
It broke LBJ. It broke Bush II. Be smart. Don't let it break you....