In November 2001, George W. Bush issued a warning to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and other rogue nations: “If they develop weapons of mass destruction that will be used to terrorize nations, they will be held accountable. And as for Saddam Hussein, he needs to let inspectors back in his country, to show us that he is not developing weapons of mass destruction.”

Political folklore holds that Bush rushed the nation into the Iraq war. But this warning came nearly 17 months before the U.S. invasion began. It was the first of many. In his 2002 State of the Union address, Bush issued another warning to Saddam: “The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.”

By the time Bush ordered the attack to begin, he had spent a lot of time arguing the need for it, with considerable success. The U.N. Security Council had approved a resolution giving Iraq “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.” He had assembled a “coalition of the willing” of 48 countries, three of which (Britain, Australia and Poland) took part in the invasion.

He had also taken his case to the citizenry. “People are always cautious about military involvement,” says polling expert Karlyn Bowman of the American Enterprise Institute. “They always want Congress involved. They always want us to work with our allies when and if that is possible. That said, in every major poll in late 2002 and early 2003, majorities supported the decision to go to war.”

A lot of things turned out to be faulty in the Bush administration’s justifications for the war, and a lot of things went wrong after the invasion. But Bush did some things every president should do in embarking on any major military venture. He stated a clear mission (removing Saddam), explained his reasons to the American people over and over, and took concrete measures to achieve his objective.

Those are areas where Barack Obama might have learned from Bush. If he had, the task of confronting Syria’s Bashar Assad would be a lot easier.

When the Arab Spring swept across the Middle East, Assad cracked down on opponents to make sure he would not meet the fate of other dictators. In August 2011, Obama announced, “For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.” But as the uprising turned into a full-scale civil war, the administration spent more time explaining why it was staying out ― unlike in Libya ― than in why it might decide to get in.

In August 2012, Obama upped the ante, stating that Assad would face “enormous consequences” if he crossed a “red line” by using or even positioning chemical weapons for use. But he apparently had not thought out this new policy. “What the president said in August was unscripted,” one Obama adviser told The New York Times.

That might have been excusable if it reflected an uncompromising stance by a president determined to follow through. Instead, Obama seems to have hoped that just making the threat would dissuade Assad. The president doesn’t seem to have given sufficient thought to how the U.S. might reinforce that warning to deter any use of chemical weapons. Nor did he develop a real plan for how to respond if deterrence failed.

It did fail. Assad elected to employ poison gas against insurgents, calling Obama’s bluff. Only then, after much vacillation and delay, did the administration get serious about the military option.

But even now, its purposes are not clear. Obama said the planned strikes would serve as a “shot across the bow.” Secretary of State John Kerry first said ground troops could not be ruled out, then said they would be ruled out. The Pentagon was told not to do anything that might bring down the regime. But by the end of last week, the White House had reportedly raised the possibility of using not only missiles but bombers to hit more targets than originally contemplated.

Obama first announced he would attack Syria on his own authority, then abruptly decided to ask for congressional approval. The reversal suggested a president unsure of his mission or reluctant to accept responsibility for it. It also betrayed more confusion.

It should come as no surprise to find the citizenry leery. Gallup reported Friday, “Americans’ support for the United States’ taking military action against the Syrian government for its suspected use of chemical weapons is on track to be among the lowest for any intervention Gallup has asked about in the last 20 years,” with only 36 percent in favor and 51 percent opposed.

Congress isn’t sure to go along. The British parliament refused Prime Minister David Cameron’s request to take part in the attack. The U.N. Security Council, with Russia wielding a veto, promises no help either.

War-weary though the American people are, they would be willing to support another intervention if the White House explained its value. The Brits and other governments might also have been persuaded by a steady, extended campaign. But such efforts came very late.

It’s hard to think of what Obama could do to change minds when he addresses the nation Tuesday night. Maybe he will get Congress and some allies to go along in the end. If so, it will come in spite of his own failures of imagination and leadership.

(Chicago Tribune)

(MCT Information Services)