Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Use of Force
I think President Obama gave us a gift when he cleverly took the debate over the Use of Force in Syria away from the national security "experts", and threw it right into the laps of the American people and the U.S. Congress. It's not only a debate worth having, I think it's the most important debate of our time. Our very own United States of America is the most bellicose nation on earth. Which is the only nation on earth to use nuclear weapons against another nation? That would be us, when we dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima ,and then, when the Japanese didn't get our subtle message and surrender unconditionally, three days later we dropped another on Nagasaki. The two bombs leveled the cities, killing an estimated quarter million people within the first four months. While many died after the bombings from the lingering affects of radiation poisoning, an estimated 50% died instantly, incinerated on the spot. Lucky them, they never knew what hit them. And those two bombs, affectionately nicknamed "Little Boy" and "Fat Man", were crude homemade IEDs compared to today's thermonuclear warheads.
And since WWII established America as the world's preeminent Superpower, we have not hesitated to use the Use of Force to get other countries to see things our way. Let's take a look at our Use of Force since WWII below the fold.
The first two Use of Force were based on a top secret document that dictated our foreign policy from 1950 through the 1970s. It was formulated by the National Security Council and was named NSC-68. It directed the the U.S. use all means possible - political, economic and military - to "contain" the power and influence of the Soviet Union, and prevent the spread of communism. President Harry Truman signed and implemented it by leading us into the Korean "War". I use quotation marks around the word "war", because only Congress can issue a declaration of war, and it has not done that since 1941, in the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Congress didn't even issue any Use of Force authorization on the Korean conflict, it sat back and let Truman conduct the "war" as he saw fit. The next Use of Force was the Vietnam "War", also based on our NSC-68 foreign policy of containment, the infamous "Domino Theory" that faceless bureaucrats in the Pentagon and White House dreamed up - that if we let the commies in North Vietnam succeed in reuniting their country after the defeat of French colonialism, other countries in southeast Asia would fall like dominoes to the dreaded scourge of communism. At least Congress acted this time, authorizing President Johnson to use force in the fight, by passing the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. OK, hindsight is always 20/20, but in looking back, I have to ask how did our leaders have so little faith that our cherished ideals of democracy and free enterprise would prevail over the obvious flaws of socialism and communism? Less than 20 years after Vietnam the Soviet Union was a distant memory, collapsed under the weight of its own ineptitude and corruption, not a single shot fired. Today the commies in China are our biggest trading partner, and the last old commies in Cuba just manage to get by, by enticing affluent capitalist tourists to come and spend their capitalist money freely. We won, and not because of the Korean or Vietnam "War", and not because of our mighty arsenal of thermonuclear warheads. We won because we were right, and they were wrong. Democracy is not without flaws, and capitalism/free enterprise has many flaws. They're just the best system of government and economics we've come up with, by far.
Former Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman (and 2016 Senate candidate) Joe Sestak was a guest on MSNBC's The Ed Show last Friday. (Yeah! Ed Schultz is back on weeknights, Happy Labor Day!) According to Mr. Sestak, Presidents have used the Use of Force 130 times since Vietnam, never once bothering to ask Congress to authorize it. The U.S. Constitution stipulates that only Congress can declare war. That is further defined by the War Powers Act of 1973, passed over President Nixon's veto by huge bipartisan majorities in Congress. The War Powers Act stipulates that the President may use military force without authorization from Congress only the face of a direct, imminent threat to our security. The President has the magic briefcase with nuclear launch codes, he's not going to ask Congress if it's OK to use them if we detect incoming nuclear warheads. Of course there are many other much less dramatic types of direct, imminent threats to our national security. But absent any direct threat, the War Powers Act requires the President to obtain authorization from Congress prior to the Use of Force. And not a single one of those 130 uses of force since Vietnam involved direct, imminent threats - and Congress did little to nothing to object. Oh, the Presidents claimed "national security" when they illegally sold arms to Iran, and used to proceeds to supply the Contras in Nicaragua. They claimed "national security" when they lobbed missiles into Sudan and Afghanistan in response to bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. President Dubya got his authorization to play the regime change game in Iraq, in the aftermath of 9/11, by using phony, fake "intelligence". Little wonder the British Parliament refused to authorize British use of force in Syria last week based solely in U.S. "intelligence". Thanks, Dubya, Rummy, and Cheney - you managed to severely harm U.S. prestige and image around the world for many years to come.
Some NeoCons are already whining that President Obama's decision to seek authorization from Congress for the Use of Force in Syria has weakened his and future President's authority. Bullshit. President Obama has strengthened our nation and the Presidency by insisting that we have this debate, and Congress authorize the Use of Force.
Now, what about the decision we need to make whether or not to lob a couple hundred Tomahawk missiles into our old "friends" in Syria, in retaliation for the Assad regime using chemical weapons, likely Sarin gas, to clear out some pesky rebels in Damascus suburbs by killing everyone in the area, including over 400 children? My immediate reaction is "Well, it's about time". We watched as mere spectators as Saddam Hussein used poison gas against the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq War, killing over 100,000 Iranian soldiers by gassing them. Encouraged by our silence, Saddam then used gas to kill over 5,000 pesky independence thinking Iraqi Kurds, and nothing was done. We've known for years that the Assad regime has amassed the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the Middle East, and have done little to stop it. The argument has been made of "what's the difference?" - does a casualty of war care if he was killed by chemical weapons, a bullet, or artillery shell? Probably not. Did those victims in Hiroshima or Nagasaki care if the were incinerated instantly, or killed by a bullet? Probably not. But I do suspect those who died slowly, suffering terribly, from radiation poison might have preferred a bullet. You have to draw a line somewhere, and I think any weapon of mass destruction is a good place to start.
So, I support President Obama's proposal for an initial limited strike against Syria. The objective is to teach Bashar Assad that if he uses chemical weapons of mass destruction against his own people or anyone else, he's going to suffer with more and more of his military assets into smoldering piles of rubble. I hope and believe it will pass Congress. But those of you opposing any use of force in Syria, please stay calm, and give me a little time before you click the back button on your browser in disgust. I do empathize with you. I was arrested in 1970 for protesting against the Vietnam war, when the demonstration got out of control after the Kent State shootings. I am an unlikely cheerleader for the Use of Force. I just believe it's justified in this case. Actually, I prefer President Obama make this offer to Assad: Destroy your stockpiles of chemical weapons under U.N. supervision, and there will be no U.S. Use of Force in Syria. But, it will be far from my biggest disappointment in life if the measure fails. And there is a fair chance it will fail. Many on the left justifiably oppose the use of force, and many on the right may have no qualms about using force, but they're happy to try anything to weaken President Obama.
You see, that's the gift to all us Kossacks, whether you support the use of force in Syria or not: we get to watch the Republican theatrics and hysterics as they try to justify their opposition to this. Something like 80 Teapublicans have already expressed their opposition to the Use of Force measure. Do you think for one second that if a President Mitt Romney was proposing Use of Force they would be opposed to it? Bwaaahahahahahaha! No, if there were a President Mitt Romney, there would already be smoldering piles of rubble in Syria, with Republicans in Congress shouting "Please, Sir, May he have some more?" (Oh, how painful it is to write the word "President" right next to "Mitt Romney", even in hypothesis) So, sit back and enjoy the show, as Republicans twist and squirm, and lie about why they oppose it. I'd love to see just a single Republican truthfully admit "I oppose the Use of Force because if President Obama is for something, I'm agin' it!"
And sitting right in the middle of this stinking pile of dog doo-doo is Speaker Boehner. He's only scheduled 9 working days of Congress in session in September, and Congress has to pass something - anything - to fund the government in the new fiscal year that starts Oct. 1. And something has to be done about the debt limit by mid October. He no doubt had planned a good fight, crafting a way President Obama and the Democrats would have to "compromise" (aka, see things their way). My prediction is that Boehner will be forced to pass a short term Continuing Resolution to fund the government at current levels at least through into early next year, along with a short term increase in the debt limit. And he'll get that passed only with a majority of Democrats supporting it, and a majority of Republicans opposing it. We might need some ear protection for the howls of outrage from the Teapublicans. Mr. Boehner will be very lucky to have the word "Speaker" in front of his name after this.
Grab some popcorn, and sit back and enjoy the show!