Posted on 04/17/2018 8:35:13 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Donald Trumps order last Friday to launch missile strikes against Syrias chemical weapons infrastructure has exposed the divisions among Americans over foreign policy. Some Trump supporters think the President has walked back from his America-first nationalism. Globalists of both parties agree that Bashar al Assad needed to be punished for brutally violating international conventions against chemical weapons. And the rabid anti-Trump left views the attack as a wag-the-dog diversion from Trumps legal troubles.
So is there a legitimate reason for bombing Syria and possibly provoking Russian retaliation that risks dragging us deeper into the Middle East quagmire?
Many Americans, sick of a decade-and-a-half of American military presence in the region believe that we dont have a dog in that fight, as the first Bushs Secretary of State James Baker said of the brutal conflicts in the disintegrating Yugoslavia of the early nineties. Some may remember George W. Bushs willingness to be the worlds policeman after he campaigned against foreign policy as social work when he launched two wars in the region. They voted for Donald Trump in part because he was a critic of the endless war in Iraq and the still active war in Afghanistan and their delusional nation-building aims, and vowed to put America first.
The problem with this understandable pox on both their houses attitude to foreign conflicts is that American security and interests have long been intimately bound up in a world that for more than century has been growing closer and more interdependent. The terrorist attacks on 9/11 were the gruesome illustration of that reality. The attackers easily travelled by air thousands of miles from their homes, and lived freely in this country as they prepared the attacks. Armed only with box-cutters, they turned commercial airliners into the smartest of smart bombs simply by navigating them into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon, killing in a few hours about the same number of Americans who died in the British invasion between 1812 and 1815. At the cost of half a million dollarsless than half the cost of one cruise missile they struck devastating blows against historys greatest military and economic power, onw they knew intimately from globally distributed news and entertainment, and had grown to hate because its very existence challenged orthodox premodern Islamic doctrine.
Given that our economy is inseparable from the global economy, we have no choice but to be concerned about the critical straits and canals through which global commerce travels, and the airports throughout the world through which people can reach our shores in less than a day. We also cant ignore the numerous illiberal and autocratic regimes whose beliefs and values conflict with those of the West. The global market, as Robert Kagan put it, needs a global sheriff so that this astonishing increase in technological innovation and wealth and their global distribution is free to continue. We may not have chosen this role, we may not like or want the job, but history so far has left the U.S. as the only great power with the military capacity for keeping order, and the political beliefs and principles that ensure we will not abuse that power to oppress others.
Yet that truth does not justify the one-world idealism that believes everybody on the planet wants to live like Westerners, or to embrace Western principles and goods like political freedom, tolerance of minorities, free speech, sex equality, secularist government, an open society, and the preference for discussion, negotiation, and treaties as the way to solve conflict rather than brute force. The great diversity of ways of life and beliefs means that transnational institutions, agreements, covenants, and U.N. Security Council resolutions will always in the end be instruments of diverse and conflicting national interests. They are honored as long as they serve those interests, but abused or subverted when they dont, especially by the more powerful nations. They are like Jonathon Swifts laws: cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through.
The Wests military dominance in the 20th century ensured that other nations would bandwagon with the West and sign such international agreements, with the tacit proviso that they would violate them whenever necessary, even as they paid them lip-service. The history of the last century, which is littered with violated treaties and covenants, proves this obvious truth. Nor is it hard to see why. As Robert Bork pointed out, such international agreements are weak because they do not necessarily reflect a global consensus that violent aggression or wanton oath-breaking is morally beyond the pale, or a violation of common customs, or a betrayal of sincere belief in the principles on which an agreement is founded. They exist by dint of treaties that sovereign nations have the de jure right to leave, or the de facto right to violate. Thus the Presidents public reason for bombing Syria, that it violated the Chemical Weapons Convention, is dubious at best, and his plea to Russia not to be tainted by its support of an animal like Assad is remarkably naive.
Indeed, Syria offers a perfect example of this dynamic of a superficial adherence to international covenants that facilitates violations of them. After Barack Obama issued his empty red line threat about Assads use of chemical weapons, Secretary of State John Kerry negotiated an empty solution to the problem by making Russia the authority overseeing the elimination of Assads stockpiles, even though it was and still is not in Russias geostrategic interests to disarm Assad. So we got a theatrical compliance that left Assad his weapons, and even worse, gave Russia a sanctioned entrée into the Syrian civil war. The pretense of adhering to international law gave cover to Russias strategic aims in the region, one of which was the continuation of Assads murderous regime.
Equally troubling, there is a strange incoherence in seeing an imperative to respond to the deaths of a few score civilians during a conflict that has killed several hundred thousand by means of conventional weapons like bombs and bullets. If we have an obligation to protect those brutalized by aggression, as the moralizing internationalists believe, then its hard to see why one kind of death is more outrageous than other kinds. This selectivity has been the fundamental weakness of international laws or obligations to prevent aggression: since we cant intervene in every brutal conflict, the only coherent rationale for interventions is that the conflict harms or threatens our national interests and security.
If virtual isolationism is not a practical policy, and moralizing internationalism a chimera, what could justify the raids against Syria? Deterrence is frequently invoked, but it obviously didnt work last year after the President destroyed some of Assads jets. Over the past year, Assad has continued to use chemical weapons on civilians. Indeed, within hours of our latest attack Assad was using high explosives and barrel-bombs to slaughter people who are just as dead or mangled as the victims of his chemical attack. Further consequences may follow. Russia and Iran for now may be blustering to save face, but there still may be some retaliation that we will then have to answer. For once a nation goes down the road of deterring a bad actor by force, it has to continue indefinitely in order to maintain its prestige. It cant announce publicly that it is a one-off.
Americans traditionally do not like constant war or military interventions, particularly humanitarian ones. We prefer to intervene when necessary, kill the bad guys, then come back home, what Walter Russell Meade calls a Jacksonian foreign policy. Unfortunately, in todays interconnected world, such conflicts are not as rare as wed like. But we must make it clear that we will not intervene when necessary just to rush home as though the work is done, nor will we engage in conflicts and occupation of the defeated enemy in order to create liberal democracy.
Rather, we need a foreign policy similar to the butcher and bolt policy of the British Empire, or what Israel calls mowing the grass. This means when an adversary or enemy challenges our power and interests, or those of our close allies, we should use force to send a message, usually by destroying some of its military assets. We should not rationalize this action by appealing to international law, the U.N., or some fantastical common vales or principles of the mythic international community. We should make it clear that there is no time-certain for when we stop, rather that we will return whenever we judge it necessary. And we should do it on the principle that a sovereign nation has a right to defend itself as it sees fit, and owes accountability only to its citizens.
In the near future, bombing Syria will likely still be necessary, not just to deter Assad or change the regime into a liberal democracy, but to let all the players in the region know that the greatest military power in history is watching events in a region we deem vital to our interests, and that we will use force to remind them of our unprecedented ability to project devastating power across the globe. Such a policy will strengthen our prestige, and concentrate wonderfully the minds of our adversaries.
The only remaining question is, Will we the people of the United States be willing to pay the costs and accept the risks of such a policy?
Right. Because missile attacks in Syria will stop anyone from making weapons here in the U.S. out of chlorine that you can buy in any pool supply store.
There us a logical middle ground between being a hermit kingdom and being condemned to endless military exertions for unattainable goals of marginal importance to American security.
So sick to death of these pointy headed little bean counters that want to run the world. Screw you dude! How about you get a real damn job!
RE: Well, sure. Thats a great excuse for intervening everywhere. Just like when the US toppled Gaddafi.
1) Striking the chemical weapons manufacturing facility is NOT intervening everywhere.
2) Assad is NOT being toppled. If we wanted to, we could have done so by now.
I read a post today, oh boy
The American Army had just won the war
A crowd of people turned away
If we are so against chemical weapons, how come we didn't bomb Saddam Hussein when he used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq War?
Or not.
Not our fight.
Not worth one taxpayer cent.
There are no good sides....all the same.
Summarizing the article: Blah, blah, blah...the U.S. needs to be the world’s policeman.
Well stated....too many here prefer putin over TRUMP.
“Right. We won a war that last about 20 minutes.”
Simply because the War was brief, does not mean that the victory was not gallant.
So, you agree with Obama's foreign policy in regard to Iraq? Just pull out and let a terrorist group takeover and, then, hunkering down here waiting for it to attack?
The war in Afghanistan has been worth every life and penny.
Yes, we needed to bring Al Qaeda to justice. diminish the terrorist threat to the homeland and have a base of operation to fight Islamic terrorism.
Haven’t we learned the lesson of Libya and Iraq?
ISIS is Sunni and we're destroying it.
If it hadn't been Obama it would have been somebody else. The American public was tired of seeing their sons dead and maimed in that pointless quaqmire.
Afghanistan needed a punitive expedition and an early departure. Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires.
Sure it has -- from someone typing on a computer keyboard. That kind of attitude will ensure it never ends.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.