| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| More Syria Thoughts: The Case for Intervention Was Never Made |
| 2018-12-24 |
| [National Review] My weekend column was about Syria, a topic that is raging because President Trump is pulling out, and because this seems to have been the last straw for General Jim Mattis, who resigned as secretary of defense. I’ve been discussing this on Twitter and find myself on the other side of people with whom I normally agree ‐ no surprise since, in my column, I am in disagreement with David French, with whom I am normally in lockstep on these kinds of issues. And no surprise, then, that I am very sympathetic to the denunciations of President Trump for the impulsiveness of the pull-out. There is a lot to be said for this. As I observed in the column, it is especially shameful if the president decided to pull out in response to a threat from Turkey’s Islamist despot, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Even though I was against intervention in Syria, and even though I think it was playing with fire to ally with the Kurds under the circumstances (more on that in a moment), I would rather the president seek an authorization for use of military force (AUMF) to protect the Kurds than leave them to Erdogan’s tender mercies. I don’t think we should be in Syria, but I’d support it in order to show the world that we don’t let those who bleed with us get pushed around, much less annihilated. On that subject, I’d note that the president is not the only one in this system who may seek an AUMF or a declaration of war. This is a power the Constitution vests in Congress. While I have my differences from time to time, I like Senators Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, and Tom Cotton, as well as some others who are complaining about the president’s rashness. But I object to the cynical game they are playing. They well know that their diva routine for the media is not the option the Constitution gives them. They could, at any time, have proposed an AUMF that would legitimize combat operations against whoever they believe are our enemies in Syria ‐ not just those who would ravage the Kurds, but those they keep saying (with great persuasive force, by the way) are our geopolitical enemies: Assad’s regime, Iran, and Russia. They still could. If they were right, it would be a great way to show how wrong Trump is. But, of course, they won’t do that. They haven’t done it up to this point because they know Americans are broadly opposed to war against these enemies in Syria at this time. If they had been able to get the equivalent of a declaration of war from the people’s representatives, that would have meant the Syrian expedition had the backing of the public. You need that in a democratic republic to fight wars effectively. Having skipped this essential step, they naturally find it easier to complain about how Trump is mucking things up than to concede that the public did not want troops in Syria in the first place. This, I must say, is what riles me. I understand the anger my friends are feeling now, but I don’t understand why they don’t get the anger I felt, and feel, over the fact that this intervention commenced without congressional authorization. A number of us argued that the intervention was not only lawless but reckless: We were going into a powder keg in which it was very likely we would end up in combat not just with ISIS (which may barely be covered by the rickety 17-year-old AUMF that covers al-Qaeda) but with Russia, Iran, and Syria ‐ as, in fact, has happened, albeit on a (so far) minimal scale. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #2 Well, there was Bath House Barry's risible "red line." There was McSsssschtain, who never missed an opportunity to bomb if he could help it. And plenty of others, all comfortably in the rear-view mirror now... |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2018-12-24 07:58 |
| #1 The whole thing is pure globalism. We have no interests in Syria. Why did we ever get involved? We allied with al Nusra for fucks sake. |
| Posted by: Herb McCoy 2018-12-24 05:40 |