Remember the disastrous situation when Mrs. Doubtfire, aka Robert Williams, first started cleaning and cooking for his recently divorced wife and their three kids? The nanny role wasn’t his strongest suit, but he eventually improved.
Well, that’s not the situation with the U.S. Our nanny complex continues to get us into a world of problems. Like most things, our good intentions backfire. And it doesn’t show signs of improving.
I applaud President Obama’s decision to seek congressional approval for military action in Syria. Especially considering his 2008 strategy to defeat Clinton was largely based on hammering her for supporting the dismal Iraq war. It’s been an awkward transition for the president, turning from dove to hawk. Using drones to further our interest like picking up candy at a Walmart check out line, only with no guilty feeling after eating it moments later.
Also consider, we haven’t had a formal declaration of war for military action with congressional approval since WWII. That means Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq (again) and Libya came and went all without Congress, all without Constitutional authority. Who needs that stubborn Section 8 anyway right?
Interestingly, as Joseph Sobran most aptly writes, war has all the characteristics of socialism most conservatives hate: Centralized power, state planning, false rationalism, restricted liberties and foolish optimism about intended results. Yet, members in both parties continue supporting militarism in its most flagrant fashions. Sure, maintaining a strong army for self-defense is key, but restraining oneself to that purpose and instead using it to “promote national interests,” or should I say failed interest, is proving difficult for our country.
I say, no more. We’ve had enough. Millennials are tired of unnecessary confrontations and unspecified, lofty conquests with no clear goal in sight.
There can be no doubt; chemical warfare in Syria, if properly confirmed without war drum propaganda, is an awful thing. It should not be tolerated by the Syrian people nor should it be tolerated by their close neighbors who have a compelling interest of remote stability in the region.
The U.S., however, does not. I’m open to arguments about the perceived backlash of remaining inactive. What will that type of U.S. reaction do to embolden our enemies who now think we condone the use of chemical warfare? But that’s the mistake, just because we don’t use force, doesn’t mean we 1. Condone it, or 2. Can’t take other measures of supporting democratic allies in the region (Um, hello, Israel). I think they can take care of themselves with the billions of dollars we fund their military with annually.
Further, we can’t even afford it. Do people so easily forget we currently have $17 trillion in debt, and now a projected $87 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Or in other words, our real past promises and our projected future promises.
We can’t even get our own fiscal house in order or pass a budget for that matter.
I’m not dismissing the emotional arguments for the atrocities of Syria’s oppressive regime. But unless the U.S. is facing systemic regional risk (aka, losing the entire region to a Syrian push to conquer the world), I don’t see why we must take action. This is not Hitler’s tide and we shouldn’t meddle in an unstable region that will only produce more enemies for our country to deal with down the road.
Mrs. Doubtfire finally had to give up his grand plan to prepare the fancy dinner that first night and have the food delivered. That should be analogous to potential U.S. action: Take a step back, admit we can’t and shouldn’t run into every conflict with good intentions but only left with failed outcomes.
We can and should rely on others to take the lead if they find it important to their interest. We can and should end our nanny-like mentality and treat other countries like the rational decision-making adults they are capable of being, or hopefully, now forced to become.
Cory Farraez is a third-year law student from Columbus, Miss.
