With military action now seeming likely in Syria, one has to ask whether the United States is defined by war.
On Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a resolution granting President Obama “limited authority” in launching a military strike on Syria and President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in retaliation for the alleged use of chemical weapons on its own people. The 10-to-7 vote sets up a full vote in the Senate next week on whether or not President Obama will be granted the authority to strike Syria.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney applauded the committee for its quick action, stating “We commend the Senate for moving swiftly and for working across party lines on behalf of our national security. We believe America is stronger when the President and Congress work together. The military action authorized in the resolution would uphold America’s national security interests by degrading Assad’s chemical weapons capability and deterring the future use of these weapons, even as we pursue a broader strategy of strengthening the opposition to hasten a political transition in Syria.”
It’s the last half of the last sentence of Carney’s statement that may hold clues as to what our involvement in Syria may encompass, especially as we attempt to “hasten a political transition.” Although the current Senate resolution bars U.S. ground troops in Syria and sets a deadline on how long the U.S. can be involved in any action, it would appear, by Carney’s words, that the administration is still pursuing possible further action.
But perhaps fighting comes “naturally” for America. Looking back through U.S. history, it’s obvious that the U.S. has been involved in some type of military operation or war campaign for nearly every decade of our existence. And we seem to be keeping pace or accelerating in the 21st century.
We fought for our independence from the British. After the Revolutionary War, expansion began, and in turn, there were numerous wars with Native American tribes. We fought the French (Franco-American War), some North African countries (African Anti-Slavery Operations), Caribbean and Greek pirates (Barbary Coast War, Second Barbary Coast War, West Indies Anti-Piracy Operations, Aegean Anti-Slavery Operations), the British again in 1812, Spain (Spanish-American War), Mexico (remember the Alamo?), and even turned on ourselves in 1860, fighting a bitter, bloody Civil War. As if that wasn’t enough bloodshed, we continued expansion, fighting yet more American Indian Wars.
And since becoming a global power around the turn of the last century, the U.S. has fought nearly a dozen other wars or military campaigns, including WWI, WWII, Korean and Vietnam Wars, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya (Benghazi). While we recently ended the war in Iraq, we continue to fight in Afghanistan and are now seriously flirting with another fight, this time in Syria. So why does the U.S. keep getting into all of these fights?
In an article entitled “Is America Addicted to War?,” author Stephen M. Walt points out that although most Americans would think of themselves as “peace loving,” it’s hard to ignore America’s history. He lists a number of reasons why he believes America keeps fighting these (sometimes foolish) wars.
Walt’s number one reason is “Because we can.” We have one of the most powerful militaries ever assembled and so, when something happens, it’s hard to resist the temptation to rush in and “do something!” And the “do-something” attitude seems to dominate our foreign policy establishment (both conservative and liberal). We’re either exporting liberty or using our military might to solve the world’s problems (even when we can’t).
Another reason Walt lists is “Who is going to stop us?” Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. is in a relatively safe geopolitical position. Certainly no one in the Western Hemisphere would challenge us militarily. China is looming out there and may one day be a “peer,” but for now anyone attacking the U.S. would probably be inviting their own destruction. Yes, there’s terrorism, but as Walt says, “…that danger is probably exaggerated, is partly a reaction to our tendency to meddle in other countries, and is best managed in other ways.” What it boils down to is America can continue to “fight the ‘good’ fight” mostly without opposition.
Probably one of the strongest reasons Walt lists is “Congress has checked out.” As he says, “The authority to declare war is given to Congress, not the president, but that authority has been steadily usurped ever since WWII. Although the Constitution could not be clearer on this point, modern presidents clearly feel no constraints about ordering U.S. forces to attack other countries, or even fully inform Congress as to what we might be doing in secret. In practice, therefore, the vaunted system of ‘checks and balances’ supposedly enshrined in our Constitution simply doesn’t operate anymore, which means the use of America’s military power has been left solely to the presidents and a handful of ambitious advisors.”
With these in mind, it would appear that America will continue along this path, including “doing something” in Syria.
http://www.gcnlive.com/wp/2013/09/06/america-%E2%80%93-defined-by-war/
Share this post...
