Making War

It's funny how people look at their war politics, whether they decide they will support warmaking by the government of the United States. In 2001, after the 9/11 attacks, people from both sides of the political spectrum supported our involvement in Afghanistan, as the goal was to capture and/or kill those responsible.

In 2002 and 2003, however, as the Bush Administration was ramping up our activity in Iraq, because both the Clinton and Bush Administrations, along with intelligence entities from the European Union were certain Saddam had chemical weapons, liberals and some Democrats felt the war was unjustified and voted not to send troops. Even our current Secretary of State John Kerry voted for the war before he voted against it.

In 2007, our current president, Barack Obama voted against against the surge in Iraq. But in 2010, he convinced the Congress to vote for the surge in Afghanistan, and the Democratic controlled House and Senate went along.

In 2011, this anti-war Senator and Nobel Peace Prize winner ordered the attack of Libya with American air power pounding that country until its leader ultimately was overthrown and assassinated by the Libyan rebels. And Democrats found this to be acceptable.

For the last two plus years, the Syrian government has been involved in a civil war, which has now escalated to another level, since evidence exists that chemical weapons were used, the same ones we never found in Iraq. But, as of now, it is unclear whether the Syrian government or the rebels used them.

At this time, the "Peace President" wants to commit US air power to strike a blow against the Syrian President, Bashir al-Assad. But why? Does he have evidence that it was Assad who did this? Has he shared this information with the appropriate Members of Congress? If not, why not?

And why are key leaders so willing to commit American firepower? What are the goals? And, remember, folks, there is no such thing as limited action, because once the first plane crashes or the first GI dies, the battle will escalate.

Perhaps,  it is time to take a step back and learn some lessons from the last decade. We are still in Afghanistan, longer than was necessary; we had a great entry into Iraq with no exit strategy; many American men and women died or are tragically wounded for a cause, ultimately, no one believes in anymore.

Let's rethink our involvement before we become involved, not after. After is too late to rethink anything. It's a Syrian and Arab problem that even the Arabs don't want to become involved. We are not the world's policeman. As the moral conscience of the world, we can help better with humanitarian aid for both sides.

Becoming involved militarily without the support of the UN, the Arab League or the European Union, unilaterally, would be a disaster for the United States, especially since any action would be illegal under international law. And, in my opinion, the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, so domestically it is illegal, as well.

Sadly, making war, any war is about politics. And this one will be no different.