War-Weary Nation Ponders Iran, Syria

GOP THINKS OBAMA NOT AGGRESSIVE ENOUGH WHEN IT COMES TO PREVENTING A NUCLEAR-ARMED IRAN

Sunday, March 18, 2012

The war drums are beating again.

Are we really going to stumble down this treacherous path once more? Or maybe twice more?

For there is pressure, much of it from domestic politics, for the United States to intervene militarily in Syria and also to use military power against Iran, possibly in tandem with Israel, to head off Iranian nuclear development.

A danger in political campaigns, especially presidential elections, is candidates tend to make exaggerated claims and unwise promises. This can be especially dangerous when it comes to foreign policy.

It is fair to point out, however, that sometimes campaign rhetoric remains just that. As a candidate, Ronald Reagan condemned the improving U.S. relationship with China and downgrading of ties with Taiwan that had begun under his recent predecessors. Likewise,candidate Reagan denounced the Panama Canal Treaties, approved under the Carter administration. However, once in office, Reagan did nothing to reverse those policies.

Nonetheless, the current political environment is rife with aggressive rhetoric, calling for military action.

And any time there is an outbreak of war fever we should be paying close attention.

Republican candidates are hammering President Barack Obama over Iran.

Rick Santorum appears eager for military action against Iran and says failure to take such action would be appeasement. He says the United States has turned its back on Israel, which sees itself threatened by Iran.

Mitt Romney says we have to demonstrate “our resolve, backed by our power and our readiness to use it.”

Among those pushing for action is Mike Huckabee, the erstwhile Arkansan.

He correctly says America cannot turn a blind eye to Iran, which he calls “the focus of evil in the modern world,” although I would suggest there are several other contenders for that title. Huckabee says we should “step up covert action in Iran” and that Obama “can allow no daylight between the U.S. and Israel.”

Obama himself said he would not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran and would take military action if that was necessary to prevent Iran from reaching that point. At the same time, however, he wisely warns against “too much loose talk of war” and says we should continue international sanctions and diplomacy, noting sanctions are having an impact on Iran, and influenced Iran’s decision to agree to talks with the six-power group on the nuclear issue.

Reprehensible as the Iranian government may be, there are compelling reasons to proceed with extreme caution in undertaking or supporting military action. Pentagon experts say even a sustained air campaign against Iran would only set the nuclear program back a few years and could lead to a wider war.

We lack certainty about the status of Iran’s nuclear program. And, remember, we went to war in Iraq on what proved to be false pretenses. But, assuming Iran is pursuing eventual weapons development, as former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, attempting a military solution will make Iranians “absolutely committed to obtaining nuclear weapons.” Efforts to stymie Iran’s program militarily would only intensify Iran’s nuclear pursuit.

Let’s turn to nearby Syria, where Bashar al-Assad’s ruthless regime has slaughtered thousands. Sen.

John McCain and some of his colleagues are calling for U.S. military intervention there. Some compare the Syrian situation to Libya, but, as retired general Wesley Clark points out, Syria poses a “much more complicated and demanding scenario than Libya.” Even so, it took a sevenmonth NATO air campaign involving hundreds of aircraft and thousands of bombs and missiles in Libya, where there was a coordinated opposition.

Thus far, there is little in the way of coordinated opposition within Syria or of a coordinated approach among external powers, in part because of the unwillingness of Russia and China to stand against Assad. Unquestionably, Assad should be deposed, but making that happen could be costly in multiple ways. Lest we forget, both Iran and Syria have considerable military capability.

Maybe there is a way to create “safe havens” along Syrian borders, but involvement of U.S. troops could be risky at best.

As we hear these calls for military action against Iran and Syria, we must reflect on the high price we have paid in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And we can’t overlook the effects of the terribly damaging series of events involving individuals or small groups of U.S military personnel during our extended presence in Iran and Afghanistan, including most recently, video of Marines urinating on dead militants, burning of the Quran and the horrific killing rampage by a U.S. soldier - actions which seriously undermine the effort to win hearts and minds in those distant lands.

Vital decisions must weigh these heavy costs and should not be determined by bellicose political clamor.

HOYT PURVIS IS A JOURNALISM AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS PROFESSOR.

Opinion, Pages 13 on 03/18/2012