- Nancy Pelosi is adamant: Congress worked together when Bush was president
- ‘Slender Man’ stabbing victim receives Purple Heart from anonymous veteran
- Kentucky city called socialist for buying gas station, undercutting competitor fuel prices
- Israel hits five mosques, sports complex in overnight Gaza strikes
- Hillary Clinton dogged for refusing reporters’ questions on book tour
- EPA tweet baffles: ‘I’m now a C-List celebrity in Kim Kardashian: Hollywood’ iPhone game
- Australian P.M. Abbott: MH17 evidence tampered with on ‘industrial scale’
- Rep. Luis Gutierrez tells Hispanics to vote and ‘punish those’ who oppose amnesty
- Country singer Tim McGraw not sorry for slapping female fan: ‘Things happen’
- Iraq vet cited for owning 14 therapeutic pet ducks
HANSON: Same old, same old in Syria
Question of the Day
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
U.S. appetite for drugs begets violence migrants are fleeing
Get Breaking Alerts
- IRS seeks help destroying another 3,200 computer hard drives
- Hillary Clinton dogged for refusing reporters' questions on book tour
- Jewish woman booted from JetBlue flight over fight with Palestinian
- YOUNG: A sinking presidency, deeper after November?
- Edward Snowden to work with Russia on anti-spy technology
- U.S. scrambles as violence escalates in Israel-Hamas conflict
- PRUDEN: A deadly enemy within exacerbating immigration crisis
- MERRY: Handicaps in Hillary's way
- Rep. Jared Polis' anti-fracking crusade riles Colorado
- EDITORIAL: Snipers from the left target Hillary