Andrew J. Bacevich
An excerpt from his recent comments on the security issues in Syria
Recall that the modern Middle East is a relatively recent creation. It emerged from the wreckage of World War I, the handiwork of cynical and devious European imperialists. As European (and especially British) power declined after World War II, the United States, playing the role of willing patsy, assumed responsibility for propping up this misbegotten product of European venality -- a dubious inheritance, if there ever was one.
Now it's all coming undone. {Aside: Lonewolf_50 notes that Yugoslavia came undone similarly, and was constructed similarly}
Today, from the Maghreb to Pakistan, the order created by the West to serve Western interests is succumbing to an assault mounted from within. Who are the assailants? People intent on exercising that right to self- determination that President Woodrow Wilson bequeathed to the world nearly 100 years ago.
What these multitudes are seeking remains to be seen. But they don't want and won't countenance outside interference.
Anyone fancying that the United States can forestall this quest for self-determination should think again. Anyone who thinks Washington can bend the process to suit our own purposes needs to undertake a remedial study of the Iraq War.
Americans have long entertained the conceit that we are bigger than history. We provide the drumbeat to which others march. Sorry: Not so.
By way of comparison, think of those stories about the sea encroaching on some Nantucket or Plum Island home. Those immediately affected might delude themselves into thinking that a bit of sand replenishment will save the day. Grown-ups know better. Ultimately, the winds and tides, reinforced of late by climate change, will have their way.
So too with the Greater Middle East. Pressure on Obama to "do something" about Syria continues to mount. Perhaps he'll refuse. I hope so. Or perhaps he'll cave, with Syria becoming yet another active theater in what has become America's endless War To Be Named Later. One thing is certain: US intervention in Syria won't affect the tsunami of change that is engulfing the Islamic world.
Why should we consider what Bacevich writes? Well, he's one of oure brotherhood, albeit currently a professor of history and international relations at Boston University. He's been critiquing US security policy for decades. I don't always agree with him, but he usually gets me thinking.
I think he got this one right.
His Bona Fides:
Bacevich graduated from West Point in 1969. He served a one year tour in Vietnam, 1970 to 1971. {The first book of his that I read was on Vietnam}. Later he held posts in Germany, including 11th ACR, and in the Persian Gulf. Retired Colonel. He holds a
Ph.D. in American Diplomatic History from
Princeton University. Taught at
West Point and
Johns Hopkins University, now at Boston University since 1998.
Bacevich's son, a first Lt, was killed in action in Iraq by an IED (In Iraq, near Samarra) in 2007. (3rd Bn, 8th U.S. Cavalry Regt, 1st Cav.) Bacevich is of Lithuanian ancestry, and has described himself as a "Catholic conservative.
In this article
his criticism of both GW Bush and B Obama regarding America's wars is concisely presented. Punch line:
"Who is more deserving of contempt? The commander-in-chief who sends young Americans to die for a cause, however misguided (Bush), in which he sincerely believes? Or the commander-in-chief who sends young Americans to die for a cause in which he manifestly does not believe and yet refuses to forsake?" {Lonewolf notes: the latter could also be said of LBJ}