You are currently viewing the printable version of this article, to return to the normal page, please click here.

HANSON: Same old, same old in Syria

Question of the Day

What has been the biggest debacle on Obama's watch?

View results

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.

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus
TWT Video Picks
You Might Also Like
  • Maureen McDonnell looks on as her husband, former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, made a statement on Tuesday after the couple was indicted on corruption charges. (associated press)

    PRUDEN: Where have the big-time grifters gone?

  • This photo taken Jan. 9, 2014,  shows New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie gesturing as he answers a question during a news conference  at the Statehouse in Trenton.  Christie will propose extending the public school calendar and lengthening the school day in a speech he hopes will help him rebound from an apparent political payback scheme orchestrated by key aides. The early front-runner for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination will make a case Tuesday Jan. 14, 2014, that children who spend more time in school graduate better prepared academically, according to excerpts of his State of the State address obtained by The Associated Press. (AP Photo/Mel Evans)

    BRUCE: Bombastic arrogance or humble determination? Chris Christie’s choice

  • ** FILE ** Secretary of State Hillary Rodham testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2013, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the deadly September attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador J. Chris Stevens and three other Americans. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)

    PRUDEN: The question to haunt the West

  • Get Breaking Alerts