THE ARROGANCE OF POWER

The United States has given the world numerous examples of the arrogance of power in the last few decades, refusing to heed President Eisenhower's prescient warning about "the military-industrial complex."

I write now about the most recent example of such arrogance, a proposal by President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, and Defense Secretary Hagel, to launch a military strike against the Syrian regime to protest the use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians.

I also note the relevant fact that, as described  in Mark Leibovich's book This Town, Washington is a place where an elite political class operates in isolation from the rest of the country and operates primarily to ensure its own self-preservation rather than to promote policies beneficial to the populace of the country.

Apparently the trio, Obama, Kerry and Hagel, have forgotten that the U,S. is the only world power to use nuclear weapons of mass destruction against civilians. What basis does the U.S. have for claiming to have the moral high ground in the face of what the U.S. has itself done?

Though I do not often quote Republican House Speaker Boehner, in fact there is no legal basis for launching such an attack, as he has noted in a communication to the White Hosue.

Is the trio willing to ignore the fact that the Security Council will not support such a venture, given the opposition of Russia and China?

Have none of the trio learned any lessons from wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, wars which have been extremely costly in American lives and treasure and have failed to result in anything that could be claimed as "victory" for the U.S.?

What, if anything, does the trio see as a danger by the Syrian regime to the security interests of the US?

We have seen repeatedly that there is no way to predict what the blowback will be from other powers once the U.S. launches a military action somewhere in the world. There is simply no way to predict what the response of other powers in the Middle East and elsewhere would be to such a military action.

Has the trio forgotten that a "limited military action with limited objectives" generally leads to an expanded are of operations and a much larger war? There is no way to predict or control what other powers in the world would do in response to a U.S. action, whether accompanied by Britain and France or not.

Has the trio forgotten that taking action against the Syrian regime would put the U.S. on the side of
the Al Queda opposition?

To show the world yet another example of the arrogance of power of the U.S. would also be an example of the height of irresponsibility and failure to take account of the opposition of much of the population of this country to such a policy.