Syria: No easy answers
|
|
September 6, 2013 |
By Congressman Raul Labrador
President Obama’s decision to seek Congressional
authorization for a military attack on Syria has
caused a major debate all across America about
the proper use of our military in regional
conflicts, whether or not an attack on Syria
would promote, or undermine, America’s national
security, and whether or not an attack would
even help the people of Syria themselves.
There are no easy answers. That is the nature of
war. The best-laid plans, and the best of
intentions, can be laid to ruin within the
opening seconds of any conflict. The history of
America, and the history of the world, is full
of examples – from the wars of ancient Greece to
World War I to the most recent war in Iraq – in
which promises of quick and easy military
victories did not come to pass, and military
involvement – while solving some problems – also
created other problems, at enormous cost of
blood and treasure.
Supporters of a Syrian attack use the U.S.
bombing campaign against Libya in 2011 as an
example of a “successful” intervention. But the
families of the four Americans who were killed
in the terrorist attack in Benghazi last year
might disagree. And just this week, the
Independent reported that “Libya has almost
entirely stopped producing oil as the government
loses control of much of the country to militia
fighters,” many of whom are affiliated with
al-Qaeda. While Muammar Gaddafi was a despicable
tyrant, the fact is, he shared our goal of
defeating al-Qeada. When Gaddafi was removed,
al-Qaeda was able to establish a beachhead in
that country – a beachhead that has expanded
over the past two years, and may continue to
expand as Libya’s economy sinks and the
authority of its government fades. By no
reasonable measure can Libya be called a
“success.” In fact, it’s been a failure.
Are we at danger of repeating that failure in
Syria? Like Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad is a
despicable tyrant, but he is not a declared
enemy of the United States. And just as
importantly, he is no friend to al-Qaeda.
Al-Qaeda would welcome Assad’s departure and
would thrive in the chaos that followed. Why
would we want to embolden al-Qaeda? And why
would we want to risk the lives of American
servicemen and women to do it?
Of course, the Administration promises that any
military strike against Syria would last only a
few days and its mission would be constrained to
protecting civilians, not removing Assad from
power. But we’ve heard these promises before -
in Libya. We were promised at the start of the
Libyan campaign that it would last “days, not
weeks” and that its goal was not regime change.
What we ended up with was seven months of war
dedicated explicitly to regime change, ending
with Gaddafi’s murder. The Administration
underestimated the enemy and changed their
mission mid-course. They broke their promises to
the American people. Why should we expect
anything different this time?
During the Libya War, the Administration was
able to keep one promise - they never put boots
on the ground. But that’s because they decided
it was unnecessary. If the Administration
attacks Syria, and then, at a later point,
decides that ground troops are necessary – will
they be able to resist the temptation? Will we
have another Iraq on our hands? And why would we
want to risk that?
On the fundamental question of “what is
America’s stake in Syria,” I have yet to hear a
good answer, although I’m still in the process
of gathering information. I am leaning “no” on a
Congressional authorization. I will not make a
final decision until I look at all of the
classified information next week.
As your Representative, it’s my job to ask the
tough questions and make sure that Congress has
a strong and open debate about this important
issue. We must not be steamrolled by the
President. We must not be led astray by calls to
“maintain our credibility” and “show our
strength.” Our strength is our democracy, and
our commitment to the rule of law. Congress owes
it to the American people to make sure that our
military is used wisely and sparingly and that
we should only put our brave servicemen and
women in danger when the direct interests of the
United States are at stake. |
|
Questions or comments about this
article?
Click here to e-mail! |
|
|
|
|
