War Hawks Are Squawking

This past week President Donald Trump made a decision to withdraw 50 special forces troops from Syria. The move was met with a wide array of reaction from government officials and social media pundits. To absolutely no ones surprise the Republican "war hawks" were melting down. This is the typical crew that are constantly calling for the U.S. military to be deployed to every corner of the planet. Their fundamental argument is that America should protect its allies and intervention in international affairs is the best way to do this. Intervening in foreign affairs certainly isn't a new concept. The term war hawk was first used to describe a group of Republican Congressmen who wanted Presidents Jefferson and Madison to declare war against Britain.  Throughout our nations history there have continually been calls for the U.S. to enter into war with other countries, either proactively (such as in the case of Vietnam) or to simply protect economic interests. One thing has been consistent with these interventions, they usually prove to be fruitless.

Now back to this most recent episode. The United States has been involved in many Middle East nations affairs for several decades. Year after year our government has engaged in nation building; creating unholy alliances that come back to haunt future leadership. Take for example the move by former President Jimmy Carter to fund the Mujaheddin fighters in Afghanistan in 1979. This was a group of Islamic militants that came out of Saudi Arabia to take on the Russians in Afghanistan. At the time, this was seen as a chess move in the Cold War.  The blowback? Arming a group that would eventually include the likes of men such as Osama Bin Laden. This is just the tip of the iceberg as you look at the unintended consequences of continually aligning with factions that come back to haunt us. Now we find ourselves entangled in fighting what seems like a perpetual war against Islamic terrorist groups, while continuing to try to nation build; picking and choosing leaders and groups to back along the way.

Most believe that the main group, ISIS, has been severally crippled, if not defeated in Syria. Along with fighting this group, there have been calls for replacing the brutal dictator of Syria Bashar al-Assad. Hawks are making an emotional plea, claiming that by leaving the area, a power struggle will ensue between Syria and Turkey. This, in turn, will allow ISIS the chance to reform and return to functional operation. This is why they say we need to stay over there. There are already stories documenting attacks from Turkey and persecution of the Kurds. In addition to this, the likes of Marco Rubio and Meghan McCain have been ratcheting up the rhetoric.  Both took to Twitter this past week to express their concern over this decision. 

McCain was even more biting in her response, calling the move "...nothing short of Godless." Since then, several others have voiced their displeasure. While these messages will be met with anger and frustration, we must pause to reflect on the intent and aftermath of our interventions.  Let's ask some questions.

The first test we should run is to ask what our role is in intervening in other sovereign nations affairs. As I documented above, this is what is to blame for the position we are in now. Further picking and choosing sides and nation building will not help out in the long run. While doing this may give the appearance that we are doing good (squashing ISIS) the ramifications will be felt later on down the road. When Carter was arming the Mujaheddin fighters, I highly doubt he concocted a scenario where he was helping to build one of the largest modern terrorist networks in the world. The second item we must consider is the cost. I do not need to go in to great detail here, but we clearly know the cost this campaign has had on our country; not only monetarily, but physically and emotionally as well. Every week and month in the paper we can read of casualties and other negatives of this monstrosity. Far too many of our brightest and best have been shipped off to have their dreams taken away. I know they do it voluntarily, but that does not make it right. And while we have not had a "major" terror attack domestically, many areas of the Middle East are still very unstable due in part to our intervention.

I will leave you with this quote from Thomas Jefferson, as he weighed in on the role of the United States in foreign affairs.  Think of how different the world would look if this worldview were followed by our political leaders.

"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of Kings to war against the principles of liberty." 

--Thomas Jefferson to E. Gerry, 1799