I see the Obama â€œresetâ€ is going so swimmingly that the president is now threatening to go to war against a dictator who gassed his own people. Donâ€™t worry, this isnâ€™t anything like the dictator who gassed his own people that the discredited warmonger Bush spent 2002 and early 2003 staggering ever more punchily around the country inveighing against. The 2003 dictator who gassed his own people was the leader of the Baath Party of Iraq. The 2013 dictator who gassed his own people is the leader of the Baath Party of Syria. Whole other ball of wax. The administrationâ€™s ingenious plan is to lose this war in far less time than we usually take. In the unimprovable formulation of an unnamed official speaking to the Los Angeles Times, the White House is carefully calibrating a military action â€œjust muscular enough not to get mocked.â€
The problem with the American way of war is that, technologically, it canâ€™t lose, but, in every other sense, it canâ€™t win. No one in his right mind wants to get into a tank battle or a naval bombardment with the guys responsible for over 40 percent of the planetâ€™s military expenditures. Which is why these days there arenâ€™t a lot of tank battles. The consummate interventionist Robert Kagan wrote in his recent book that the American military â€œremains unmatched.â€ Itâ€™s unmatched in the sense that the only guy in town with a tennis racket isnâ€™t going to be playing a lot of tennis matches. But the object of war, in Liddell Hartâ€™s famous distillation, is not to destroy the enemyâ€™s tanks (or Russian helicopters) but his will. And on that front America loses, always. The â€œunmatchedâ€ superpower cannot impose its will on Kabul kleptocrats, Pashtun goatherds, Egyptian generals, or Benghazi militia. There is no reason to believe Syria would be an exception to this rule. Americaâ€™s inability to win ought to be a burning national question, but itâ€™s not even being asked.
Making it even more complicated is that with Syria, we don’t even know what our “will” is. All we really know is that, as usual, pResident Gutsy Call no doubt feels it’s something that we need to be apologizing for.
It does mark another historic first for him, though: this will be the first time the country has been dragged into war merely to keep the Dimwit In Chief from looking bad because he couldn’t stop his big mouth from writing checks his dumb ass couldn’t cash.
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income â€” to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear â€” I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
Just one of many such quotes popping up all over from various double-dealing, opportunistic, fork-tongued liberals. And lest we forget:
Remember how Barack Obama was going to unite the world and build coalitions and finally respect the authority of the UN?
Remember how going it alone in matters of war used to be a bad thing, even when you went it alone in a coalition of 40 countries?
Well, hey, why should they? How does that help them do their job, which is propping up their stumbling, bumbling Dreamy Dreamy Dreamboat?