Chasing Evil . . .

. . . around the globe is not America’s job.

This Administration’s ballooning involvement in prewar preparations against Syria was about to become a tipping point which – if it already hasn’t been reached – could have embroiled the U.S. in another international conflict lasting well beyond the second term of President Barack Obama, the man who has become irrevocably tied to the phrase “crossing the red line.”

But who is it, exactly, that was about to cross that red line into the abyss of unintended consequences?

Warfare is a hazardous undertaking.  There are times which require it.  And there are times when it is wiser to seek a more practical solution.

Theories of just war have been debated for centuries by some of history’s best minds.  Yet, not even their most rigorous analyses – however justified – were enough to sop up all of the bloodshed, as well as the millions of shattered innocent lives.

Americans are said to be war-weary.  Why not?  We were promised specific results in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yet, consider what happened in those military engagements:  Korea was begun as a “police action,” yet a brutal dictator still rules the north and has nuclear weapons. 

The Vietnam War was fought under the guise of the “domino theory,” a concept which falsely assumed that if South Vietnam fell, all other contiguous nations would succumb to communism.  That did not happen, and today we trade with Vietnam! 

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan spun wildly out of control, lasted far too long, and staggered beyond their originally intended purposes. The United States is now committed to the unrealistic obligation of “rebuilding” Afghanistan with cash that it doesn’t have.

Meanwhile, Iraq still boils with killings and bombings and is caught up in the internal equivalent of a civil war between Shi’a and Sunni interests.

America is war-weary not merely because it has become ensnared in so many conflicts since WWII, but because our leaders have not picked the right fights at the right time and because they have not fought to win decisively.

Americans don’t like to lose – at least we never did.  Too many revolving door politicians and elitist advisors have forgotten that simple dictum.

Limited wars entered into with politically weak motives don’t achieve intended results – they rarely do.

President Obama should keep this foremost in his mind as he mulls the possibility of another demonstration of “shock and awe” with, as he claims, “no boots on the ground.”

We don’t need a falsely fabricated assurance that no American lives will be put in harm’s way, something which, when the bombs fly, no one will ever be able to guarantee.

Nor do we need naïve military expeditions concocted by armchair soldiers who won’t be around when the coffins come home.  “Shots across the bow” are not effective deterrents in The Middle East.

The generals know that.

The crescendo of briefings and statements that has been directed our way from the Oval Office is not convincing.  Neither is the current chorus line of lobbying and arm twisting by the President and his advisors. 

The full court press by Secretary of State John F. Kerry; his predecessor Hillary Clinton; Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power; U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel; National Security Advisor Susan Rice; House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi; and, perhaps, Valery Jarrett, a behind-the-scenes top advisor to the President, has not been successful.  

It is part of a Washington cabal that has been beating the drums of war and which is supported quietly, but just as effectively, by Middle East Arab states such as Saudi Arabia that won’t fight their own battles, while enjoying the incremental profits of higher oil prices.

Despite the influence of presidential advisors and special interest groups, Americans remain steadfastly opposed to a so-called limited military expedition that will not satisfy U.S. national interests, but which could blossom into another full-fledged, losing war of attrition.

There was a time when American wars were fought with the intent of decisively defeating the enemy.  But victory is a word which seems to have slipped from the lexicon of Washington. 

The U.S. has fought and lost too much at the cost of too many lives, a depleted treasury, and at the price of the mental health of many of our fighters and of their families.

That is why Americans are wisely skeptical of speeches that the blood of their daughters and sons will not be spilled once more across the sands of The Middle East. 

Defeat and lack of clarity are not traits of the American character.  Too many people within Washington’s Beltway don’t understand either of those attributes, or simply don’t give a damn:  it is not the blood of their progeny, nor is it their treasury which is about to be expended.

Let this not be the launch of the fifth losing war into which America is about to enter.

Conclusion:  President Obama is already laying the groundwork to back out of his ill-considered decision to bomb Syria. 

In a recent interview with Diane Sawyer of ABC News, he declared that “Strikes may be less effective if I don’t have Congressional support and that the American people don’t recognize why we’re doing this. . .” 

“. . . My hope would be that I can persuade Congress that this is important. My hope would be that I can persuade the American people that this is important.”

The President will not succeed in persuading anyone.  He has not persuaded himself.

Other international leaders are coming to the world’s rescue with a better plan.  Obama has been outwitted in this dangerous chess game.

The paradox of all this waffling and reversal by the White House is that the uranium centrifuges are still spinning in Iran.