Obama's Gulf of Tonkin Moment

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright June 16, 2013
All Rights Reserved.                                      

      Presidential candidate Barack Obama had much criticism over former President George W. Bush gratuitous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, promising voters in 2008 that he’d work hard to end both wars and never embroil the U.S. in another preemptive war.  Fast forward to last week when conservatives on Capitol Hill imposed their will on Barack, now poised to lend military support to so-called “vetted” Syrian rebels fighting to topple President Bashar al-Assad.  Citing the questionable use of sarin nerve gas, the GOP has beaten Obama into making good on his promise of military intervention if al-Assad crossed the “red line” of using chemical weapons.  Citing convincing proof of chemical weapons, Obama had his “Gulf-of-Tonkin” moment, when President Lyndon Johnson claimed the Summer-class destroyer U.S.S. Maddox was attacked Aug. 2, 1964 by North Vietnam navy torpedo boats.

Johnson got what he wanted Aug. 7, 1964 when Congress passed the Gulf-of- Tonkin resolution officially starting the Vietnam War.  Eleven-years later, the U.S. had lost 58,220 troops when Saigon was toppled April 30, 1975 by the Ho Chi Minh’s North Vietnam Army.  While casualties have been much less in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. has lost 7,030 troops and over $2 trillion tax dollars.  What Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan all have in common is they lack a legitimate national security rationale.  Toppling Saddam Hussein was a bitter lesson by Bush, having achieved only one objective of getting rid of Saddam.  Today’s government of Nouri al-Maliki has close ties than ever to Iran, responsible for sacking the U.S. embassy Nov. 4, 1979, holding 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.   Obama’s June 13decision to enter the fray in Syria marks the beginning of a U.S. proxy war against Iran.

Obama’s National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes has been busy justifying U.S. military intervention in Syria.  “This is more a situation where we’re just not going to be able to lay our an inventory of what exactly falls under the scope of that assistance other that to communicate that we have made that decision,” said Rhodes, remaining deliberately vague as to what and to whom the U.S. intends to supply Syrian rebels.  Whether Rhodes admits it of not, the Obama administration has now joined the Saudi-backed Wahhabi war against al-Assad, fighting alongside Ayman al-Zawahri’s Al-Qaeda’s mujahedeen jihadists, the same group responsible for Sept. 11.  Joining al-Qaeda again harks back to the days when the U.S. partnered with Osama bin Laden to battle the Soviet takeover of Afghanistan.  Joining the Sunni rebels fighting al-Assad, the U.S. pits itself again against Russia, China and Iran.

Suggesting that the U.S. can pick-and-choose to whom the weapons go in Syria is unrealistic and naïve.  Syria’s sectarian war involves a Saudi-funded Wahhabai war against al-Assad’s Alawite Shiite minority government.  Radical Palestinians, including exiled Palestinian leader Khalid Meshaal—once an al-Assad ally—have also joined the battle to topple the Syrian regime.  Arming al-Zawahir’s mujahedeen, radical Palestinians and various Wahhabi jihadist groups to start a proxy war with Iran by battling Hezbollah can’t end with good outcome.  “The president must rally an international coalition to take military actions to degrade Assad’s ability to use airpower and ballistic missiles and to move and re-supply his forces around the battlefield by air.  This can be done, as we have said many times, using stand-off weapons, such as Cruise missiles,” said Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-N.C.). 

McCain and Graham’s approach enables radical Islam to takeover al-Assad’s Baathist regime currently repressing Saudi-backed extremist Sunni groups.  Russian President Vladimir Putin told Secretary of John Kerry not mess with the Syrian civil war that threatens to destabilize the region.  While Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov agreed May 27 to hold a peace conference to find alternatives to toppling al-Assad, Obama’s June 13 decision to arm Syrian rebels pulls the rug out from underneath U.S. Russian and Chinese relations.  Putin knows what its like dealing with Chechen terrorists and has no interest in opening up the floodgates in Syria to a host of Wahhabi extremist groups.  Al-Assad’s June 6 victory pushing rebels from al-Qusair prompted U.S. action to arm Syrian rebels.  When Hezbollah joined the fight May 9 to save Syria, al-Assad got the upper hand.

U.S. military intervention in Syria can only result in more bloodshed and instability to the Middle East.  Fighting a proxy war against Iran with Hezbollah opens up a potentially unending battle.  As Israel found out in 2006, Hezbollah knows how to fight and win guerrilla wars.  U.S. forces have found out the hard way in Afghanistan and Iraq that there’s no winning for losing.  However the U.S. spins both wars, Iraq’s ties to Iran have never been closer.  Afghanistan’s U.S.-backed Karzai government has closer ties to the Taliban than ever.  Obama’s decision to use sarin nerve gas as the excuse du jour to intervene in Syria is his Gulf-of-Tonkin moment to get the U.S. into a new Mideast war.  Instead of re-igniting the Cold War antagonizing Russia, Obama should make good on his promise to host an international peace conference before handing over sophisticated weapons to radical Islam.      

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com.and author of Dodging the Bullet and Operation Charisma.