Syria Is Different

Remember when it was unconstitutional for a president to send troops to war without congressional approval?

The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. ~ Sen Barack Obama (D, Il) 2007

Remember when principled members of congress called for the impeachment of a president who might consider military strikes against a foreign country without congressional approval?

“The president has… no…. Constitutional… authority to take this nation to war against a country of 70 million people unless we’re attacked, or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked,” Biden declared, loud and clear.  ”And if he does, I would move to impeach him.  The House, obviously, has to do that.  But I would lead an effort to impeach him.” ~ Sen Joe Biden (D, De) 2007 

Remember when Bashar Assad was "a reformer"?


Remember when Assad was "generous"?

On March 16, 2011—the day after the first mass demonstration against the regime—John Kerry said Assad was a man of his word who had been “very generous with me.” He added that under Assad “Syria will move; Syria will change as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States.” This is the man who might be our next secretary of state.

Remember when Assad was Secretary of State, John Kerry's, "dear friend"?

Staffers describe their collective cringe when, after a motorcycle ride with Bashar al-Assad, he

returned to Washington referring to Bashar as “my dear friend.”

If none of this fills you with confidence, given the current state of affairs, fear not, everything's different now.  But that sets up a whole other set of problems with consistency, doesn't it?

Take it away, Victor Davis Hanson.

Deriding the Iraq war was Obama’s signature selling point... For the last five years, disparagement of “Iraq” and “Bush” has seemed to intrude into almost every sentence the president utters...
His sudden pro-war stance makes a number of hypocritical assumptions. First, the U.S. president can attack a sovereign nation without authorization from Congress (unlike the Iraq war when George W. Bush obtained authorization from both houses of Congress). Even if Obama gets a no vote, he said that he reserves the right to strike.

He does?  How does that square with his statement from 2007?  It doesn't, that's how.  Now, shut up, you racist!

But then, as VDH noted, not much the Pres does now squares with his rhetoric.  Fortunately, Dr Hanson provided us with some examples.

On the perils of going it alone without allies 

“Where the stakes are the highest, in the war on terror, we cannot possibly succeed without extraordinary international cooperation. Effective international police actions require the highest degree of intelligence sharing, planning and collaborative enforcement.” (2004) 

So far no European or Arab nation has offered military support for our planned effort against Syria. 

On the need to obtain UN approval before attacking another country 

“You know, if the U.S. goes in and attacks another country without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it, do we have the coalition to make it work, and, you know, those are considerations that we have to take into account.” (2013) 

After misleading the UN in obtaining no-fly-zones for Libya (and then bombing troops on the ground), Obama is not even approaching the UN for a resolution to bomb this time around. 

On the idea that armed intervention is ever a good option 

“I don’t want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.” (2008) 

The mindset in Iraq was to stop a genocidal dictator like Saddam Hussein who had gassed his own people — apparently the present mission is to stop the genocidal dictator Bashar Assad, who has gassed his own people. 

On the folly of starting a wrong war to ensure a president’s sinking credibility 

“It’s time to reject the counsel that says the American people would rather have someone who is strong and wrong than someone who is weak and right.” (2008) [Talk about false choices.  It's entirely possible to be both weak and wrong. ~ O.S.]
“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.” (2002) 

Most believe that we are going to war mostly to restore Obama’s credibility after he issued an ill-advised red line to Syria that he thought would never be crossed — a war, in other words, predicated on “politics.” 

On the dangers of not defining a mission or a methodology 

“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-Qaeda.” (2002) [As opposed to arming Al-Qaeda, like we did in Libya. ~ O.S.]

“When we send our young men and women into harm’s way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they’re going, to care for their families while they’re gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.” (2004) 

So far we have not articulated the purpose of attacking Syria, the methods of intervention, or the desired outcome of the war — at a time of deep administration cuts to defense, soon to be made worse by sequestration. 

On not intervening in the civil wars and internal affairs of Arab nations 

“The U.S. military has performed valiantly and brilliantly in Iraq. Our troops have done all that we have asked them to do and more. But no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else’s civil war, nor settle the grievances in the hearts of the combatants.” (2007). 

Syria is currently in “somebody else’s” civil war in which the Assad dictatorship, Hezbollah militias, and Iranian volunteers are battling al-Qaeda affiliates, the Free Syrian Army, and various unknown coalitions of Assad opponents.

There may have been a time, early in the Syrian civil war, when we could have armed rebel groups that sought to establish responsible governance in Syria.  Even if that was ever true - and that's a big if - that time is long past.  Today, the Syrian civil war boils down to a fight between Iran and Al-Qaeda.  Regardless who we back, we back an enemy.