NEOCONS, WHERE’D THEY GO?

Remember a few years back when neocons—neoconservatives—were all the rage? Remember the large role they played in getting the nation into those little skirmishes in Iraq and Afghanistan? Well, they certainly seem few and far between today. A handful are still around: Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Laura Ingraham, for example. Dick Cheney still sounds off occasionally. But by and large they seem to be lying low.

Which on one hand is a pity, because their willingness to throw military might at a situation could contribute to the backing the President seeks before delivering a bit of punishment to Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons, a punishment that definitely should be delivered.

But on the other hand, those neocons weren’t the most rational people. Their answer to most problems in the foreign affairs arena boiled down to us kicking the snot out of some country or group. Winning hearts and minds was not their thing. Their attitude was, “Grab ‘em by the gonads. The hearts and minds will follow.”

And the “us” that was to do the snot kicking wasn’t necessarily them, safely ensconced in their think tanks, literary havens, political positions, and the like. The “us” was the sons and daughters of ordinary Americans. As Mr. Cheney once said about the five military deferments he received in the sixties (Vietnam, remember?), “I had other priorities.”

Moreover, the neocons weren’t very good on the details of snot-kicking. Just throw some troops at the problem. We’ll think about goals, objectives, strategy, and stuff later. They were sort of the opposite of Teddy Roosevelt’s “speak softly and carry a big stick.” They were more “scream loudly ‘til the other guy quits.” Only the other guy can often outlast the inept application of military power.

So most of us won’t miss the neocons. They were fun while they lasted, but all good things must end. Now we can turn for entertainment to those rising laugh-a-minute libertarians. It’s like your favorite TV show went off the air but this new one definitely has possibilities.

OBAMA'S SYRIAN SPEECH

This is what the President should say in his upcoming speech to the nation on Syria. Oh, not necessarily the exact words. His speech writers should be able to smooth the jagged edges. But these are the points he should get across Tuesday night.

My fellow Americans. I come before you tonight to present the case for military action against the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad. The reason for military action is simple: punishment for using chemical weapons.

War is horrible. But chemical weapons are especially horrific. They were used extensively in World War I. The revulsion against them and their terrible effects was so great that they were absent from the battlefields of World War II and have been employed only in isolated instances since then. All but a handful of nations--Angola, North Korea, Egypt, South Sudan, and Syria--are party to the Chemical Weapons Convention outlawing the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons.

Bashar al-Assad was warned about using chemical weapons in Syria's current civil war. But he ignored the warnings and recently slaughtered more than a thousand fellow Syrians, including over four hundred children, with chemicals.

This despicable act requires punishment. And that is the nature of the military action I am prepared to undertake. The action is punishment for waging war in a manner that is condemned by the vast majority of the world's nations and peoples. The action is designed not only to punish Bashar al-Assad but also to discourage any other powers from resorting to such evil in the future.

But, many ask, how would punishing the Syrian dictator impact our policy toward him in general and toward the civil war he is conducting?

Our desire regarding Bashar al-Assad and Syria is that he no longer be the ruler of Syria and that Syria start down the path to a democratic government and freedom and justice for its citizens. But these goals are not things we will pursue with large-scale military action. To impose our will on Syria by force would require a massive military invasion, an effort similar to the one we led in 1990-91 to remove the forces of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. The wars we have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last decade show the confusing, unsatisfying outcomes that can flow form trying to do too much with too little military. 

Partly as a result of the inconclusive Iraq and Afghanistan wars, partly as a result of a decade of exposure to the perplexing conflicts of the Middle East, the American people would not be supportive of open-ended military action in the area, much less a large-scale military effort in Syria. Moreover, a large-scale military effort would have to be followed by a large-scale, long-term military occupation in order to protect the fragile new government. And again, this is not a mission Americans are currently disposed to undertake.

We will continue to explore diplomatic solutions. We will provide various sorts of support--short of large-scale military action--to what groups we can find in Syria that share our desire for peace, justice, and democracy in the country. But we are not prepared to attempt to solve the many problems in that part of the world by force. We are the most powerful nation in the world, but there are limits to that power. There are limits to what we can accomplish in, or impose on, other cultures. 

What we can do is to punish pure evil. And chemically killing over a thousand of his fellow Syrians, including over four hundred children, was an act of pure evil by Bashar al-Assad. I propose to punish him and his instruments of power for that act.

 

Thank you, and may God bless and protect America.

OBAMA ROLLS THE DICE

In what could be one of the defining actions of his Presidency, President Obama has rolled the dice on military action against the Syrian regime. Instead of ordering military action, he has asked Congress for authorization to do so.

The need to respond to the despicable conduct of the Syrian regime−using chemical weapons against its own people−would have been unquestioned in decades past. But the combination of three factors is threatening to turn back the nation's clock to the pre-World War II years when peace at all cost was the shameful stance of many Americans. First, after the costly and drawn out conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan−drawn out in large measure because of the military incompetence of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld−the American people are tired of foreign involvements, particularly in the perplexing, confusing Middle East.

Second, the current Congress is certainly one of the most partisan and inept in the nation's long history of partisan and inept Congresses. If this Congress is a true reflection of the electorate, we are indeed a nation dominated by dummies. And third, far too many so-called conservatives, including far too many conservatives in Congress, simply want to see Obama fail, never mind the cost to the nation. The visceral dislike−hatred is not too strong a word−of the nation's first President who does not have a typical middle or upper class American background is more than palpable in some quarters.

So it does not seem too strong a statement to say that the President has put his ability to govern effectively over the next three years, and his place in history, on a roll of the dice. Maybe this isn't his reasoning, but his bet seems to be that the Congress can rise above itself, can rise above the passions that have engulfed tea-party, Fox-Noise America, and do what is required of a world power with responsibilities it may not want but most certainly should not avoid.

That is one helluva bet.