IBT Editorial:
The administration's planned strike on Syria is increasingly opposed
by many in a U.S. military coping with the scars of two long wars, a
rapidly shrinking budget and soldiers saying we're "tired, stretched
thin and broke."
That sentiment was expressed by an active-duty soldier with a rank of
Sergeant First Class in an email to Rep. Justin Amash. The Michigan
Republican has been receiving, compiling and tweeting emails from
current and former service members now being asked to commit to an
ill-defined mission with an unclear goal in support of rebels mostly
linked to al-Qaida and other unfriendly interests.
"The message I consistently hear: Please vote no on military action
against Syria," Amash tweeted. Most objections relate to the lack of a
clear objective in striking Syria and the muddled line between
anti-government rebels and al-Qaida-affiliated terrorists.
The backlash against boots on the ground or even wings in the air has
exploded on social media. Many in the military are posting photos of
themselves holding signs stating they'd refuse to fight on the same side
as al-Qaida in Syria. The photos went viral, with one post alone
generating more than 16,000 shares on Facebook.
"Our involvement in Syria is so dangerous on so many levels, and the
21st century American vet is more keen to this than anybody," Business
Insider's Paul Szoldra quotes former Cpl. Jack Mandaville, a Marine
Corps infantry veteran with three deployments to Iraq. "It boggles my
mind that we are being ignored."
A decade of involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, with many of the
rank and file seeing the fruits of their victories squandered by the
Obama administration's precipitous, ideologically driven withdrawals,
raises the question why we should bother about Syria.
In a blistering editorial in the Washington Post, Maj. Gen. Robert
Scales, former commandant of the Army War College, touches on the
growing discontent among military leaders regarding Obama's reckless
combination of dithering and bravado on Syria.
"They are embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of the
Obama administration's attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic
sense," Scales opines. "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."
According to Scales, the military is privately "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.' " The
rank-and-file, in other words, are outraged that their blood may be shed
just to save presidential face.
The military can't afford any sustained campaign against Syria
without the kind of supplemental appropriation then-Sen. John Kerry was
for before he was against in Iraq. That fact, and the potential dangers
of mission creep, were highlighted in a July 19 letter by Chief of Staff
Gen. Martin Dempsey to Sen. Carl Levin, head of the Senate Armed
Services Committee.
Dempsey wrote then that using "lethal force to prevent the use or
proliferation of chemical weapons" could cost "well over $1 billion per
month." He also wrote that controlling chemical weapons would require
more resources than just air and cruise-missile strikes. He said it
would need to be coupled with "thousands of special operations forces
and other ground forces" to secure critical sites.
Sounds like boots on the ground to us.
During a hearing on Syria in front of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, committee Chairman Sen. Bob Menendez asked Kerry if there
would be any possibility of ground troops entering Syria at some point.
Kerry said the administration had "no desire" to put boots on the
ground. But he hinted it could happen in the event "Syria imploded . . .
or in the event there was a threat of a chemical weapons cache falling
into the hands of al-Nusra or someone else."
Then Kerry added, "I don't want to take off the table an option that
might or might not be available to the president of the United States to
secure our country."
Well, many in the military do, saying their boots aren't made for
walking on Syrian soil in a war we can't afford, particularly if it
means dying for al-Qaida. They are saying, "Hell, no, we shouldn't go."
No comments:
Post a Comment