The Middle Thirty - Rantings and Ravings on All Things Political: September 2013

The Obama Administration's strategy toward Syria has been one stymied by bitter diplomacy, political partisanship, and past foreign policy blunders. Despite the overwhelming evidence that Assad did use chemical weapons on his own people, there is little actual support for action on Syria in the US, leaving Obama with little recourse but to look to the UN for action.

A quick glance at our country's history in the region, with a focus on Iran and Iraq, will show why finding support to strike Syria is scant:

1953 - The CIA and British MI6 overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh, the Prime Minister of Iran, over fears that the nationalization of Iran's oil industry would lead to a Soviet takeover. Shah Reza Pahlavi was put into power and would remain an ally until his ouster in 1979.
1979 - the Shah of Iran is ousted by revolutionaries and the Islamic Republic of Iran is established. Condemned by this new, hostile government for the 1953 coup, the United States then sought to ally ourselves with another rising power in the region, Saddam Hussein.
1980 - With new ally Saddam Hussein invading our former ally of 25 years, The Iran-Iraq war begins. The US would provide Iraq with helicopters, training, and dual-use technology. The war would rage on for 8 years, with a total of one million killed, along with the use of chemical weapons by Saddam's forces.

During this period, the CIA was also arming the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Invasion, as made famous by Charlie Wilson's War.

1990 - Saddam invades Kuwait. The international community responds and in 1991 Operation Desert Storm began to displace Saddam from Kuwait. Coalition forces stop just short of moving into Baghdad and removing Saddam.
2001 - In reaction to the September 11 attacks, the US invades Afghanistan to displace the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
2003 - US invades Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein over the allegations of Iraq stock piling WMDs and chemical weapons. Troops would withdraw from Iraq in 2011 without any WMDs or Chemical weapons being found.
2011 - Former ally, Mujahideen fighter, and architect of the September 11 attacks Osama Bin Laden is killed in Pakistan.
2011 - Libyans overthrow their government with NATO air support during the Arab Spring.
2011 - Syrians revolt against the Assad regime. Estimated 100,000 dead through June 2013.

The history of US intervention in the Middle East and the surrounding Arab countries is essentially one of a failed foreign policy. Former allies of Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan would all later become enemies. Twice, our intervention in to providing resources and training would backfire as we would go on to fight Iraq (two times) and the successors to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Such a history, compounded with the recent reports of the increasing divide between rebel forces in Syria, would definitely make one apprehensive about getting involved at all and with good reason. It almost seems like a chapter out of 1984, where allegiances have switched so many times it has become hard to keep track ("We've always been at war with Eastasia").

If it were as simple to look at our trouble history in the region and our failed nation-building, then the conclusion to not get involved in Syria would be an easy one. However, the entrance of partisan politics into the mix has clouded the situation, prominently within the ranks of the Republican Party. A sharp divide has arisen, especially between the likes of libertarian-leaning Rand Paul and the old guard of John McCain, along with former Bush cabinet members of Cheney and Rumsfeld chiming in. Let's start with the irony of the latter two being arrogant enough to think they have the qualifications to even speak further on foreign policy. You can see a nice video of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in 1983:

With Cheney, here is a video of his opinion as to why the George HW Bush Administration did not remove Saddam Hussein during Desert Storm:

As we know, both were apart of George W. Bush's Administration during the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Rumsfeld's prior interaction with Saddam is more symbolic, as it would become an embarrassing episode in the drama of US-Iraq relations. With Cheney, the interview is more profound as it illustrates all the problems the US would later have during the Iraq invasion of 2003 and subsequent occupation. Despite such revelations of a potential insurgency and lack of regional allied support, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush all pressed forward with the invasion.

Such issues did not prevent both from chiming in on Syria, along party lines. Rumsfeld, via politico:

"There really hasn't been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation"

Cheney, via The Daily Caller:

“Is it strictly humanitarian?” he continued. “Is it geo-strategic? Does the United States have a vested interest in the outcome? Are we potentially involved in some kind of proxy war with the Soviets or the Russians, excuse me, who are supporting Assad? I think it is important that Assad go down. I think — my instinct would have been to support the opposition sooner. You had an opportunity, if you cared about it, if it was in fact in the national interest. You had an opportunity earlier to provide support without having to get American forces directly involved and they took a pass. Now they are going to do it. But the question is whether or not they are a day late and a dollar short."

It is so nice to see both Rumsfeld and Cheney growing a conscience about the United States moving into a possible protracted war. Too bad they bother didn't ask such rhetorical questions or provide the same resistance when they made the choice to invade Iraq in 2003. I am sure their criticism has nothing to do with the fact that there is a Democrat in the White House.

Let us not forget how quickly Iraq turned bad. What was supposed to be a short invasion, turned into a near-decade quagmire, with 4400+ American soldiers dead. These two men served as part of an administration, so sure of its success in Iraq, it didn't even bother to provide security to many important sites in Baghdad after the invasion and looting became rampant. Finally, after withdrawing in 2011, the ultimate slap-in-the face occurred as China moved in to essentially control Iraq's oil industry. I think after all these debacles, it is just time for both Cheney and Rumsfeld to simply shut up about foreign policy. More humble men would be shamed into silence, but for them hubris abounds.

The divide between the GOP on Syria serves as a microcosm of how the country also feels about the Syria issue. Despite the chemical weapons use by Assad, the country is tired of war, so I do think the resistance by many in congress is a result of this. I think the average American, after seeing the blunders of Iraq, has at least become enlightened in one regard: politicians shouldn't be trusted with the lives of our soldiers so wantonly as in 2003. Also, maybe we should demand our government do a better job of vetting our allies, as if being associated with Hussein and Bin Laden is not bad enough, our record in South America is not very stellar either.

This phenomenon, however, also illustrates the bitter irony of the Syria situation. Unlike Iraq, where the evidence for WMDs and chemical weapons was dubious, here we have stronger evidence with international members also acknowledging it. As an American who did support the Iraq invasion, I can admit now that we were hoodwinked, not by some moving prose from our president as to the merits of the war, but by our own patriotism. But now, exhausted from two protracted wars, we do not want to act. If only we had demanded such evidence from the likes of Rumsfeld and Cheney, perhaps things could have been different in Iraq.

Essentially, for the Obama administration, moving on Syria is a lose-lose and in such a political environment, perhaps seeking approval of congress and the UN is probably best route. However, it also shows how utterly partisan the political environment still is in the US, with pundits acknowledging the hard choices ahead of the Obama administration, yet still seek to blame the president. From Buzzfeed:

"And Rush Limbaugh, the most powerful conservative pundit in the country, openly confessed that he hadn't made up his mind on the issue. After tearing in to the president for failing to act when Syria first crossed “the red line,” and deriding Democrats’ foreign policy “hypocrisy,” he arrived at the question of whether the U.S. should strike Syria."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/27/us-syria-crisis-inspectors-idUSBRE98Q0GQ20130927

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57600875/obama-seeks-syria-strike-with-congress-approval/
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2013/09/23/130923taco_talk_davidson?mbid=gnep&google_editors_picks=true
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/syria-debate-deepens-republican-divide
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304373104579105483307740074.html

The Middle Thirty - Rantings and Ravings on All Things Political

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Spectre of Iraq Looms Over Syria Decision