Opposition to Syria War Goes All the Way to the Pentagon

Military Is Opposed to Syria War

Many current and former military officers are highly skeptical of any military engagement with Syria.

They are speaking out in interviews, in photos, and in conversations with politicians.

And the doubts go all the way up to the Pentagon.

Professor Jonathan Turley has been ranked as one of the top 10 lawyers handling military cases, has a frequent witness before the House and Senate,  was found to be the second most cited law professor in the country, is a member of the USA Today board of contributors, and has worked as the CBS and NBC legal analyst, respectively, during national controversies.

Turley writes this week:

I have spoken to people at the Pentagon who have complained privately that there appears to be no adult supervision at the White House and that there is major opposition to this course in the military. The feeling is that Obama aides are drifting again into a war with wider implications and uncertain ends.

And Robert H. Scales – a retired Army major general, and  former commandant of the U.S. Army War College – writes at the Washington Post:

It’s pretty obvious that Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, doesn’t want this war. As Secretary of State John Kerry’s thundering voice and arm-waving redounded in rage against Bashar al-Assad’s atrocities, Dempsey was largely (and respectfully) silent.

Dempsey’s unspoken words reflect the opinions of most serving military leaders. By no means do I profess to speak on behalf of all of our men and women in uniform. But I can justifiably share the sentiments of those inside the Pentagon and elsewhere who write the plans and develop strategies for fighting our wars. After personal exchanges with dozens of active and retired soldiers in recent days, I feel confident that what follows represents the overwhelming opinion of serving professionals who have been intimate witnesses to the unfolding events that will lead the United States into its next war.

***

Prospective U.S. action in Syria is not about threats to American security. The U.S. military’s civilian masters privately are proud that they are motivated by guilt over slaughters in Rwanda, Sudan and Kosovo and not by any systemic threat to our country.

They are outraged by the fact that what may happen is an act of war and a willingness to risk American lives to make up for a slip of the tongue about “red lines.” These acts would be for retribution and to restore the reputation of a president. Our serving professionals make the point that killing more Syrians won’t deter Iranian resolve to confront us. The Iranians have already gotten the message.

***

They are tired of wannabe soldiers who remain enamored of the lure of bloodless machine warfare. “Look,” one told me, “if you want to end this decisively, send in the troops and let them defeat the Syrian army. If the nation doesn’t think Syria is worth serious commitment, then leave them alone.” But they also warn that Syria is not Libya or Serbia. Perhaps the United States has become too used to fighting third-rate armies. As the Israelis learned in 1973, the Syrians are tough and mean-spirited killers with nothing to lose.

***

Today’s soldiers know war and resent civilian policymakers who want the military to fight a war that neither they nor their loved ones will experience firsthand.

***

Our most respected soldier president, Dwight Eisenhower, possessed the gravitas and courage to say no to war eight times during his presidency. He ended the Korean War and refused to aid the French in Indochina; he said no to his former wartime friends Britain and France when they demanded U.S. participation in the capture of the Suez Canal. And he resisted liberal democrats who wanted to aid the newly formed nation of South Vietnam.

This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • thetruth

    Just as the shape of a pentagon contains a pentagram, we have an Evil Pentagram within the Patriot Pentagon. The Patriots must defeat the Satanic (or should I say Satanyahu-ic) Pentagram. The IDF linked NSA and all Israeli firster generals belong to the Pentagram.

  • Avery111

    No adult supervision.. That about sums it up.

  • wally Clark

    Party members are more concerned with showing loyalty to leaders than the morality of sending more of our men and women to their death and killing the men women and children of those we oppose.

    What is the real reason for this possible war? Crossing a line in the sand? Placing one’s ego above killing human beings – only by someone w/serious mental issues. Because they have murdered their citizens with chemical weapons rather than a internationally sanctioned method of murder. If true/or not it provides an excuse and a cover for the real reason(s).

    The last time this prevarication was used at least we had Colin Powell to look to for the truth!!

 

 

Twitter