Watch out, everyone. The war hawks are circling.
Over the past few days, millions of Americans have been briefed on the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Syria.
As President Barack Obama continues to try and persuade members of Congress to authorize a military strike against Syria, many war hawks have come out in support of Obama.
On CNN’s “State of the Union,” White House Chief of Staff Dennis McDonough vehemently supported Obama and his call to arms.
“This is something that’s targeted, limited and effective, so as to underscore that (Syrian President Bashar al-Assad) should not think that he could get away with this again,” McDonough told CNN.
What was surprising about the interview was not McDonough’s message but his tone.
At times during his interview with CNN’s Candy Crowley, McDonough appeared belligerent and closed-minded.
“Now do we have irrefutable, beyond reasonable doubt evidence? This is not a court of law, and intelligence does not work that way,” McDonough added.
Contrary to McDonough’s misguided belief, the U.S. should be absolutely certain that chemical weapons were used before launching a limited military strike.
Launching missiles against a foreign combatant should require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, despite McDonough’s limited understanding.
Although France, Great Britain and the U.S. claim they have evidence supporting the assertion that Assad used chemical weapons on his own people, a United Nations report confirming the claim has yet to be released.
Until the U.N. releases a report confirming U.S. premonitions, a strike against Syria would be ill-fated.
Before war hawks like McDonough and John McCain (R-Az.) advocate for a possible strike against Syria, they should take a lesson from what transpired in Iraq.
Leading up to the 2003 Iraqi invasion, many members of the media came out in support of a war against Saddam Hussein.
Some asserted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction although none were ever recovered.
Yes, the situation in Syria is different than the situation was in Iraq.
Before the U.S. moves forward, however, officials should seek to learn from the past.
Only a U.N. Security Council-approved strike would alleviate the U.S. of all burden and criticism in Syria.
For a strike to be successful, the U.S. must gain support from its Western peers, including commitments from Western militaries.
“We have plenty of support. I’m not going to get into who’s going to do what in any particular operation,” McDonough told CNN. “We feel very good about the support we have.”
Let’s hope what McDonough said is the truth, not political rhetoric.
Shane Newell is a junior journalism major and the opinions editor at the Daily 49er.