Intervention in Syria requires congressional OK

I don’t like John Boehner. It isn’t personal, but I loathe the politics of the Speaker of the House. So it’s killing me to say that his latest pronouncement is absolutely right: If President Barack Obama is planning a military intervention in the Syrian Civil War, he’d better consult Congress first. In fact, may I suggest more than mere consultation?

By any measure, Syria is a nation-state and the Assad regime, for better or worse, is its government. Under international law, nation-states may make war upon one another, but they should first declare it.

Remember Pearl Harbor? We were rightly offended that Japan bombed us without first declaring war. We should have the decency to do the same.

The United States Constitution vests in Congress the power to declare war. So if the president wishes to engage in offensive military action against the Assad regime, let him ask the Congress to declare war. Let them vote on a resolution, and then we can see where every one of our representatives — including Boehner — stands.

In the unlikely event that this fantasy should come to pass, here are a few considerations on the question of whether this nation should engage in another Mideast war.

Less than 40 percent of Americans think we should intervene in Syria. Given the fact that public support for military campaigns usually decreases over time, a 40 percent "going in" rate is not encouraging. Military campaigns waged contrary to public support are rarely successful, particularly in democracies.

Successful military campaigns are marked by an achievable goal and a clear mission statement. Our recent military misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan are examples of what happens when we fail to do this at the outset. What exactly is our goal? Do we intend merely to punish Assad? Is our aim to ensure his fall from power? Are we seeking to destroy his chemical weapons?

Successful military campaigns are also marked by a congruence of goals with ways and means. Even if the goal is clear, there is no point in applying military power unless it is decisive. Punishing Assad is easy. Removing him from power is going to take more than a few cruise missiles. And destroying his chemical weapons is a huge undertaking, probably requiring the introduction of ground forces.

While the president has made clear his distaste for committing American soldiers to a Syrian campaign, consider the words of T. R. Fehrenbach, who wrote of the Korean War: "You may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life — but if you desire to defend it, protect it and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men in the mud."

How much war can the U.S. Treasury afford? Due to budget constraints, the United States Army is about to resize from 43 to 35 combat brigades. Even in a soldierless war, each cruise missile costs American taxpayers $1.4 million.

Is a military campaign against Syria in our national interest? "Red lines" or not, Assad’s use of poison on his own people is reprehensible. Yet even if we were able to depose him, the result would not necessarily be an improvement. Who would you prefer in charge in Syria: Assad, Hezbollah or al-Qaeda?

Having served almost three decades in uniform, I am not opposed to war. I am only opposed to stupid war. Before we engage in acts of war against the Syrian regime, let’s think this one through.