There’s a must-read op/ed in today’s Washington Post, authored by a retired Army Major General. He draws on “dozens” of exchanges with active and retired military leaders to mount a case that Pentagon brass want no part of a Syria intervention. He begins by analyzing Gen. Martin Dempsey’s body language during Congressional hearings this week — by far his least compelling argument. Then comes the meat of his case. Brutal:
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 administrationâs 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 âresponsibility to protectâ the worldâs innocents. Prospective U.S. action in Syria is not about threats to American security.The U.S. militaryâs 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 âred lines.â These acts would be for retribution and to restore the reputation of a president. Our serving professionals make the point that killing more Syrians wonât 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.
If this assessment is even somewhat representative of prevailing sentiments within our military leadership ranks, it’s utterly damning. The piece goes on to lament the Obama administration’s penchant for “bloodless war” — which the author says conveys the superficial appearance of strength without achieving much:
They are tired of wannabe soldiers who remain enamored of the lure of bloodless machine warfare. âLook,â one told me, âif you want to end this decisively, send in the troops and let them defeat the Syrian army. If the nation doesnât think Syria is worth serious commitment, then leave them alone.â 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 todayâs 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.
The author closes with a note of resignation, averring that the US military will carry out the impending war with professionalism and courage, even if it’s an unwise action:
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 worldâs most proficient military. I wish Kerry would take a moment to look at the images from this weekâs hearings before we go to war again.
I’m in no position to determine whether this is a tendentious screed, or a fair approximation of how Pentagon higher-ups feel. If it’s more the latter than the former, it sounds as if American military leadership shares the intense skepticism expressed by the American people and many in Congress.
