- Mass. police award 3-year-old girl for saving pregnant mother
- Sen. Barrasso: ‘Nothing flies, nothing shoots, nothing works’ in Ukrainian military
- RNC ‘autopsy’ authors: ‘Tremendous progress’ from a year ago
- Gun control groups turn to private sector to push crackdowns
- Study to test ‘chocolate’ pills for heart health
- Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay arrested for DWI
- Obama, Abbas to meet Monday morning regarding peace talks
- Guinness quits New York’s St. Patrick’s Day parade over gay march prohibition
- RNC goes on offensive with ad buys in 14 targeted states
- Saudi Arabia bans 50 ‘blasphemous’ baby names — like Benjamin
HANSON: Same old, same old in Syria
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.
In this regard, we should not expect much good from bombing Syria, given the difficulty of sorting out the various insurgents and our loud prior announcements of limiting the use of force.
To the degree we are not willing to insert ground troops, it is more likely both that we won’t accomplish much and won’t get trapped in a quagmire.
It is wiser to obtain congressional approval, and the more foreign allies that join the better. Having a clear objective, a sound methodology and a definition of victory is essential — whether in big or small interventions.
So far, the president can’t decide on the real objective in Syria, much less how to obtain it. Is the goal the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, the punishment of President Bashar Assad for using these weapons, restoring the president’s credibility after unwisely issuing red lines, immediate U.S. national security interests, the removal of Mr. Assad himself or help for the insurgents?
If the president neither obtains congressional approval nor makes the attempt to go the United Nations, the attack will probably be unpopular abroad — even more so without any allies or American public support.
Finally, promising in advance that whatever we do will probably be short and limited will make it likely that, if it fails, it will be forgiven and forgotten. If it is deemed successful, it will have little, if any, lasting, strategic effects.
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
About the Author
TWT Video Picks
By David A. Clarke Jr.
Blame Washington's intelligence failure, not lack of police
Get Breaking Alerts
- CURL: We overhauled U.S. health care to insure 4.2 million people?
- Guinness quits New York's St. Patrick's Day parade over gay march prohibition
- Bill Maher: God a 'psychotic mass murderer' who 'drowns babies'
- California gun store owner refuses to hand over customer list
- Crimea votes in favor of secession; U.S. rejects
- New 'gainful employment' proposal sparks criticism
- Firefighters discover church's Bible in Harlem rubble following gas explosion
- College group's diversity event canceled after excluding white people
- Obama makes play for Obamacare in March Madness-themed ad
- McCaul offers scenario where missing Malaysian jet lands in hostile country to be use as missile
Recent Letters to the Editor
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Reid's 'untruths' creating Democratic sheep
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Atheists don't live in faith-free world
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Death knell of Malaysia Airlines?
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: De Blasio doing disservice to 'underdog' students
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Anti-God humanism will ruin nation