Will the history books record these past couple of weeks as the point when
the tide finally turned against our interventionist foreign policy?
We began September with the Obama Administration on the verge of launching
Tomahawk missiles at Syria. The missiles were needed, the administration claimed,
to punish the Syrian government for using poison gas on its own people. There
were reports that in addition to missiles, the administration was planning
airstrikes and possibly even more military action against Syria. The talks
of a punishing "shot across the bow" to send a message to the Syrian government
also escalated, as some discussed the need to degrade the Syrian military to
help change the regime. They refused to rule out a US ground invasion of Syria.
Secretary of State John Kerry even invoked an old bogeymen that had worked
so many times before. Assad was another Hitler, we were told, and failure to
attack would equate to another Neville Chamberlain-like appeasement.
The administration released its evidence to back up the claim that the Syrian
government was behind the gassing, and the president asked Congress to authorize
him to use force against Syria. Polls showed that the American people had very
little interest in getting involved in another war in the Middle East, and
as the administration presented no solid evidence for its claim, public support
eroded further. The media, as usual, was pushing war propaganda.
Then something incredible happened. It started in the British parliament,
with a vote against participating in a US-led attack on Syria. The UK had always
reliably backed the US when it came to war overseas, and the vote was a shock.
Though the House and Senate leadership lined up behind the president's decision
to attack Syria, the people did not. Support among the rank and file members
of the Senate and House began to evaporate, as thousands of Americans contacted
their representatives to express outrage over the president's plan. The vote
looked to be lost in the House and uncertain in the Senate. Then even Senators
began to feel the anger of the American people, and it looked like a devastating
and historic loss for the president was coming.
The administration and its pro-war allies could not bear to lose a vote in
Congress that would have likely shut the door completely on a US attack, so
they called off the vote. At least for now. It would have been far better to
have had the president's request for war authorization debated and voted down
in the House and Senate, but even without a no vote it is clear that a major
shift has taken place. A Russian proposal to secure and dismantle the Syrian
government's chemical weapons was inspired, it seems, by John Kerry's accidental
suggestion that such a move could avert a US strike. Though the details have
yet to be fully worked out, it seems the Russia plan, agreed to by the Syrian
government, gives us hope that a US attack will be avoided.
The American people have spoken out against war. Many more are now asking
what I have been asking for quite some time: why is it always our business
when there is civil strife somewhere overseas? Why do we always have to be
the ones to solve the world's problems? It is a sea change and I am very encouraged.
We have had a great victory for the cause of peace and liberty and let's hope
we can further build on it.
