By Kevin D. Williamson
Sunday, April 09, 2017
On Wednesdays, we are at war with the Islamic State. On
Thursdays, we are at war with the
Islamic State, in effect acting as a cat’s-paw for the world’s leading jihad
brigade against the government of Bashar al-Assad, who apparently intends to
murder Syrians until he is pleased with what is left.
We should let him.
This is not cynicism, only an acknowledgement of the
actual facts of the case. As Daniel Pipes and others have persuasively argued,
the United States does not have an ally in Syria. The United States does not
have any national interest in the success of the ISIS-aligned coalition
fighting to depose Assad. The United States does not have any interest in
strengthening the position of the Assad regime and the position of his Russian
and Iranian patrons. Pipes sums it up: “Iranian- and Russian-backed Shiite
pro-government jihadis are best kept busy fighting Saudi-, Qatar-, and Turkish-backed
anti-government Sunni jihadis.”
Of course the Assad regime is murderous. It is murderous
in an awfully familiar way: a Baathist despot in cahoots with jihadists using
chemical weapons against a civilian population. You’d think we would have
gotten that out of our system with Saddam Hussein.
The Trump administration has no authorization to engage
in war on Syria. Congress has not declared war or authorized the use of
military force; there is no emergency to justify the president’s acting
unilaterally in his role as commander in chief; there is no imminent threat to
American lives or American interests — indeed, there is no real American
interest at all. President Donald Trump is acting illegally, and Congress has a
positive moral obligation to stop him. This is exactly why we have an
impeachment process, though for the moment a bipartisan congressional
resolution — if Congress had any self-respect, it would be unanimous — ought to
be sufficient.
All decent people feel for the Syrians. We also feel for
the Ukrainians, the North Koreans, the men and women languishing in Chinese
laogai, Russian gulags, and Cuban prisons. We do not go to war for the sake of
sentiment. We go to war for the sake of pressing national interests that cannot
be otherwise secured. There is no casus belli for knocking over the Assad
government, odious as it is.
As noted in National
Review Online, the Trump administration notified the Russians ahead of the
missile strikes on Shayrat Air Field, meaning that the Syrians were effectively
alerted to our intentions as well. Trump, who during the campaign declined to
speak about many of his national-security views in a transparent attempt to cover
up his deep and wide ignorance with tough-guy talk about not telegraphing our
moves to the enemy, did everything short of using an actual telegraph. Critics
who pointed out — and continue to point out — that President Trump suffers from
serious defects in both character and judgment have precisely this type of
situation in mind. War isn’t Twitter.
If what the Trump administration has in mind is symbolic
pinprick Tomahawk missile strikes launched from safe harbor, then the president
and his men are merely fooling about. If what the Trump administration has in
mind is something more substantial, then the president owes the nation an
explanation of exactly what those young men and women who may be asked to do
their country the service of dying for it would be dying for. So that we can
all feel a little better about the savage state of the Middle East and our own
occasional fumbling contributions to that savagery? So that President Trump can
advertise his independence from Moscow and from the many admirers of Vladimir
Putin who have surrounded him from time to time? Because we do not like seeing
disturbing images on television?
Perhaps the American public has changed its mind — again
— about the wisdom and necessity of toppling Levantine dictators on grounds
that might charitably be described as naïvely idealistic. But the American
public did not show much stomach for the long fight the last time around, and
we still do not quite seem to know what we ought to be doing in Iraq: After
being borne to the presidency on a wave of anti-war sentiment and pocketing a
Nobel Peace Prize for his great achievement in not being George W. Bush, Barack
Obama found himself obliged to reinvade Iraq, where thousands of U.S. troops
are currently in their seventh month of “supporting and advising” — ahem — the
siege of Mosul.
President George H. W. Bush went to war with Iraq to
reverse the invasion of Kuwait, an American ally, with an eye toward
discouraging Saddam Hussein from future adventures. President George W. Bush
went to war with Iraq because he believed that the country could be made into
something like a decent liberal democracy, or at least a friendly failing state
on the lines of Pakistan during the rule of Benazir Bhutto.
Why is Donald Trump making war on Syria?
Congress ought to ask him to explain that, and also to
explain from where he believe he derives the authority to do so without legal
authorization.
No comments:
Post a Comment