Now that president Obama is no longer in office, the Democrat/media "experts" are back in force with their dogma denouncing any use of American military power. I was reminded of that by an article in the Boston Globe written by professor Jeffrey Sachs denouncing America's "wars of choice." According to Sachs, conflicts like World War I, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq have been disasters created by choice. Only World War II was acceptable. Sachs offered no opinion on the Civil War or the Gulf War. Most likely, he accepts the former and abhors the latter. Now, Sachs is denouncing President Trump for entering a war in Syria and inciting another war with North Korea. Sometimes, I wonder what world people like Sachs inhabit.
Let's start with the idea that the wars that Sachs opposes are "wars of choice". In other words, did the USA have a choice whether or not to engage in these wars? The clearest example is the war in Afghanistan. America entered that conflict after 9-11 to destroy the bases in Afghanistan from which al Qaeda launched that horrific terror attack. Sure, we could have chosen to ignore the 9-11 attacks if we were suicidal. Calling Afghanistan a war of choice is like calling eating a choice. A person can choose not to eat, but the end result is death. So how about wars like World War I or Korea. In 1917, the shipping of the USA was the target of unrestricted attack by German submarines and we also discovered that Germany was trying to entice Mexico into attacking the USA. It was far from a choice to enter that war. In 1950, tens of thousands of North Koreans attacked South Korea without provocation. The United Nations stepped in an organized a defense for the South Koreans in which the USA participated. It is true that the UN acted only because the Soviet Union had been boycotting the UN at that time. Nevertheless, a war sanctioned by the world community ought to be the archetype of liberal dogma for an acceptable war. It was not a war of choice, at least not of our choice.
Further, the idea that President Trump has America entering the war against Assad in Syria is silly. Trump launched a missile attack on a base from which chemical weapons were deployed in violation of international treaties which prohibit their use. That's all. There are no more American troops in Syria than there were under Obama. We have not expanded the target list beyond ISIS for airstrikes. It was a one off attack. As for North Korea, there is no war. There is, however, a much more muscular diplomacy. After all, nothing inspires a crazy like Kim Jung Un to reconsider his actions than a carrier battle group deployed a few hundred miles from his shores.
Let's start with the idea that the wars that Sachs opposes are "wars of choice". In other words, did the USA have a choice whether or not to engage in these wars? The clearest example is the war in Afghanistan. America entered that conflict after 9-11 to destroy the bases in Afghanistan from which al Qaeda launched that horrific terror attack. Sure, we could have chosen to ignore the 9-11 attacks if we were suicidal. Calling Afghanistan a war of choice is like calling eating a choice. A person can choose not to eat, but the end result is death. So how about wars like World War I or Korea. In 1917, the shipping of the USA was the target of unrestricted attack by German submarines and we also discovered that Germany was trying to entice Mexico into attacking the USA. It was far from a choice to enter that war. In 1950, tens of thousands of North Koreans attacked South Korea without provocation. The United Nations stepped in an organized a defense for the South Koreans in which the USA participated. It is true that the UN acted only because the Soviet Union had been boycotting the UN at that time. Nevertheless, a war sanctioned by the world community ought to be the archetype of liberal dogma for an acceptable war. It was not a war of choice, at least not of our choice.
Further, the idea that President Trump has America entering the war against Assad in Syria is silly. Trump launched a missile attack on a base from which chemical weapons were deployed in violation of international treaties which prohibit their use. That's all. There are no more American troops in Syria than there were under Obama. We have not expanded the target list beyond ISIS for airstrikes. It was a one off attack. As for North Korea, there is no war. There is, however, a much more muscular diplomacy. After all, nothing inspires a crazy like Kim Jung Un to reconsider his actions than a carrier battle group deployed a few hundred miles from his shores.
No comments:
Post a Comment