By Robert H Scales, a retired Army Major General,
is a former Commandant of the U.S. Army War College.
The tapes tell the
tale. Go back and look at images of our nation’s most senior soldier,
Gen. Martin Dempsey, and his body language during Tuesday’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Syria.
It’s pretty obvious that Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, doesn’t want this war. As Secretary of State John Kerry’s
thundering voice and arm-waving redounded in rage against
Bashar al-Assad’s atrocities, Dempseywas largely (and respectfully) silent.
Dempsey’s unspoken words reflect the opinions of most serving
military leaders. By no means do I profess to speak on behalf of all of
our men and women in uniform. But I can justifiably share the sentiments
of those inside the Pentagon and elsewhere who write the plans and
develop strategies for fighting our wars. After personal exchanges with
dozens of active and retired soldiers in recent days, I feel confident
that what follows represents the overwhelming opinion of serving
professionals who have been intimate witnesses to the unfolding events
that will lead the United States into its next war.
They are embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of
the Obama administration’s attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic
sense. None of the White House staff has any experience in war or
understands it. So far, at least, this path to war violates every
principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass and
having a clearly defined and obtainable objective.
They are
repelled by the hypocrisy of a media blitz that warns against the return
of Hitlerism but privately acknowledges that the motive for risking
American lives is our “responsibility to protect” the world’s innocents.
Prospective U.S. action in Syria is not about threats to American
security. The U.S. military’s civilian masters privately are proud that
they are motivated by guilt over slaughters in Rwanda, Sudan and Kosovo
and not by any systemic threat to our country.
They are outraged
by the fact that what may happen is an act of war and a willingness to
risk American lives to make up for a slip of the tongue about “red
lines.” These acts would be for retribution and to restore the
reputation of a president. Our serving professionals make the point
that killing more Syrians won’t deter Iranian resolve to confront us.
The Iranians have already gotten the message.
Our people lament
our loneliness. Our senior soldiers take pride in their past commitments
to fight alongside allies and within coalitions that shared our
strategic goals. This war, however, will be ours alone.
They are
tired of wannabe soldiers who remain enamored of the lure of bloodless
machine warfare. “Look,” one told me, “if you want to end this
decisively, send in the troops and let them defeat the Syrian army. If
the nation doesn’t think Syria is worth serious commitment, then leave
them alone.” But they also warn that Syria is not Libya or Serbia.
Perhaps the United States has become too used to fighting third-rate
armies. As the Israelis learned in 1973, the Syrians are tough and
mean-spirited killers with nothing to lose.
Our military members
understand and take seriously their oath to defend the constitutional
authority of their civilian masters. They understand that the United
States is the only liberal democracy that has never been ruled by its
military. But today’s soldiers know war and resent civilian policymakers
who want the military to fight a war that neither they nor their loved
ones will experience firsthand.
Civilian control of the armed
services doesn’t mean that civilians shouldn’t listen to those who have
seen war. Our most respected soldier president, Dwight Eisenhower,
possessed the gravitas and courage to say no to war eight times during
his presidency. He ended the Korean War and refused to aid the French in
Indochina; he said no to his former wartime friends Britain and France
when they demanded U.S. participation in the capture of the Suez Canal.
And he resisted liberal democrats who wanted to aid the newly formed
nation of South Vietnam. We all know what happened after his successor
ignored Eisenhower’s advice. My generation got to go to war.
Over
the past few days, the opinions of officers confiding in me have
changed to some degree. Resignation seems to be creeping into their
sense of outrage. One officer told me: “To hell with them. If this guy
wants this war, then let him have it. Looks like no one will get hurt
anyway.”
Soon the military will salute respectfully and loose the
hell of hundreds of cruise missiles in an effort that will, inevitably,
kill a few of those we wish to protect. They will do it with all the
professionalism and skill we expect from the world’s most proficient
military. I wish Kerry would take a moment to look at the images from
this week’s hearings before we go to war again.
No comments:
Post a Comment