- - Thursday, September 5, 2013

U.S. interventions have been all over the map, and so have their results

President Obama’s on-and-off-again planned American attack on Syria is nothing new. Besides its five declared wars, America has a habit of intervening all over the world.

Even apart from clandestine CIA operations, and even after the unhappy end of the Vietnam War, we have attacked lots of countries and non-state militias.

The roll call of recent American military interventions is quite astounding: Cambodia, Iran, Libya, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Liberia, Iraq, Haiti, Somalia, the former Yugoslavia, Zaire and Afghanistan.

The notion of past American isolationism is a myth. In the four years between 1912 and 1916 alone, the U.S. sent troops into Cuba, Panama, Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico, the Dominican Republic and Haiti.

Even those busy years of intervention were not novel. Since our infancy, the U.S. military has been constantly engaged. In another four-year period, between 1812 and 1816, America fought the British, the French, the Spanish and the North Africans.

Some of these deployments were effective, either furthering American and allied interests or serving a common humanitarian purpose. Greece was saved from communism after World War II. Saddam Hussein was forced out of Kuwait and, ultimately, Iraq. Dictator and drug-dealer Manuel Noriega was deposed from Panama. At other times, our periodic undeclared wars just made things worse.

With Mr. Obama contemplating bombing Syria, is there any guide from the past about whether yet another attack is wise or silly?

Sometimes, the president sought congressional approval (e.g., both Bushes in the two Iraq wars). At other times, he attacked without authorization (Bill Clinton in the Balkans). Obtaining a United Nations resolution seemed wise before the first Gulf War, but proved impossible in the Balkan bombing.

After Vietnam and the passage of the War Powers Act, it was more likely for a president to seek congressional authorization, but again not always. Ronald Reagan, like many others, bombed the Libyans and invaded Grenada without asking Congress.

Sometimes, the undeclared interventions cost Americans tens of thousands of lives (Korea and Vietnam). But often, very few were killed (Panama and Grenada). The interventions could last just a few days, as when Mr. Clinton sent missiles and bombs into Afghanistan, East Africa and Iraq, or years on end such as the costly ground fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam.

Our supposed motives varied widely — whether revenge (bombing Libya and Afghanistan), enforcing U.N. resolutions (Korea), the prevention of genocide (Serbia), humanitarianism (Somalia), helping allies (Vietnam), regime change (Iraq and Libya), protecting U.S. commercial interests (Central America) or harming foreign efforts (Grenada).

If we collate all the interventions since the Marines invaded Tripoli in 1804, a certain pattern emerges. The more clearly defined and decisive the intervention, the more likely it was judged successful. In addition, making progress or winning outright was essential to ensuring public support.

Even disastrous and ill-thought-out interventions that accomplished nothing or made things worse, such as Gerald Ford’s 1975 attack in Cambodia, Jimmy Carter’s failed Iran rescue mission (1980) or Reagan’s intervention in Lebanon (1982-83) did not cause lasting popular outrage — given that setbacks were brief and the operations quickly ended.

In contrast, any war that drags on and costs thousands of American lives — whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, the Philippines or Vietnam — proves unpopular, even when they sometimes succeed in deposing tyrants and putting something better in their place.

Story Continues →