Look at this title: “Wars like Vietnam, Afghanistan bound to fail without congressional sign-off,” what does it imply? It implies that any war can be won if the Congress agrees to pursue it. But the reality is that winning or losing a war has nothing to do with who agrees with it and who does not. It has to do with the justification to launch the war in the first place, and the force that is brought to bear against the foe.
That
happens to be the title of an article which also came with the subtitle: “Framers
knew nations can win only when they fully commit.” This part promises that when
the Congress agrees, it signals the nation’s willingness to win the war, thus
makes it possible to fully mobilize the necessary resources and commit them
toward the war effort.
Michael
McKenna wrote that article, and had it published on October 25, 2021 in The
Washington Times. His intent for making the assertions that he did, is
reflected in the subtitle. In dragging the framers of the Constitution into the
discussion, he tried to strengthen what he knew was a weak argument. But in so
doing, he inadvertently made the “forever wars” an acceptable condition for
America to be in. Whereas his intention is a noble one as shown throughout the
rest of the article, his approach gives ammunition for the warmongers who wish
to push America into a perpetual war.
This
is what we must conclude about McKenna’s article, given that he took the slant
that he did instead of taking the logical approach, which would have been to enumerate
the reasons that justify starting a war, and discuss those reasons in detail.
Unfortunately, what the author did instead was to argue for why the Congress
and the President should split the responsibility for declaring a war, and for
conducting it. Here, in condensed form, is what McKenna wrote:
“The framers understood that a nation can
only win wars to which the citizens commit. The framers separated the powers to
wage wars between Congress and the president. They also knew that councils
of wars are breeding grounds of timidity. To win wars required placing the
execution of war in the hands of the president. They understood that war is the
enemy of liberty. They had a fear of the dangers of a standing army.
Unfortunately, members of Congress have been accomplices of a president of
their party rather than guardians of the authorities of Congress.
Presidents have launched us into wars without the required clarity. When one
man can send an entire nation to war for reasons and with goals that are
unclear, it is a recipe for disaster. Things as nebulous as a war on terror or
a war of containment are bound to fail. Wars like Vietnam or Afghanistan
can’t be won”.
It
is obvious from this montage of excerpts that the author was preoccupied with
how to win a war more than he tried to advise on how to recognize the justness
and legitimacy of a war; or how to avoid getting drawn into one in the first
place.
To
see how an article can be written when the intent is to advise on the futility
of getting into wars, or the foolishness of adopting a posture that might
invite war, we turn to the article that came under the title: “Biden Wants to
Stay in Syria—But
Withdrawal Is Overdue,” and the subtitle: “The sober reality is that keeping
even a token deployment of US troops in Syria endangers American lives, doing
more to risk dragging the United States into conflicts prudent leaders should
seek to avoid.” It was written by Michael Hall, and published on October 31,
2021 in The National Interest.
Here,
in condensed form, is what Michael Hall had to say:
“The administration is
providing assurances there will be no US withdrawal from Syria, where Americans
are involved in a ‘relentless war.’ These promises
represent a strategic blunder. The
defense of the Kurds seems to be one factor behind the decision. Instead of
utilizing US troops to protect Syria’s Kurds, it would be more prudent to end
US military involvement in Syria. It’s true that Kurdish fighters fought
alongside US troops in ridding ISIS of territory. But the US taking kinetic
action in defense of the Kurds is out of the question. Denying ISIS territory
was a limited mission for which military force was the right tool. Protecting
Syria’s Kurds, however, requires a constant supply of resources and manpower,
and lays out no victory conditions which can be met. Bluntly put, Syria is not
a prize for the US to covet. It is possible to encourage Kurdish leaders to
make arrangements for protection without expecting US forces to stick around
forever. The best option is to withdraw from Syria, acknowledging that when the
mission has diverged from legitimate security interests, it’s time to relent”.
The
unmistakable message here is that lending American protection to a group, can
have the opposite effect to what’s intended. As demonstrated by the Kurds who
made a deal with the government of Syria when they knew that America will not
come to their rescue, the best posture that America should take from here on,
is to advise those who seek help to negotiate with their neighbors.
And
so, whether it is the Kurds or Israel or anyone else, America must relieve
itself of the burden of protecting others, or arming them or financing them.
They will not do war if they don’t have the means to do war.
America has the power to achieve a permanent peace by being honest with itself and withholding the help it offers to others.