������Ƶ

After the long, agonizing war in Vietnam, American strategic thinkers of all stripes embarked on a soul-searching effort to determine what had gone wrong and what lessons should be learned.

Today, President Barack Obama, having ignited a political firestorm with his proposal to attack Syria with congressional approval, seems to have applied some of those lessons while leaving others on the table.

Among the most widely applauded assessments of the Vietnam experience was that of Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger forged with the help of his military assistant, Maj. Gen. Colin Powell. In 1984, Weinberger set down six tests to be met when considering the use of military force in the future.

• The U.S. should commit forces only to defend a vital national interest.

President Obama has given himself about 10 days to define the “vital national interest” in Syria and to persuade the Congress and the public to accept his judgment. Congress has agreed to begin deliberations next week.

• That commitment should be made only with the intention of winning.

The president has, in effect, ruled out the need to win, at least in the classic sense of victory on the battlefield. But he has left open the chance to define winning as imposing American will on the rulers of Syria.

• The U.S. should have clearly defined political and military objectives.

The president has started down that road and, as with the national interest, given himself 10 days to define objectives and to persuade the Congress and the voters to agree with him.

• The composition of U.S. military forces in relation to the objective that is sought must be continually reassessed.

The president has said a strike against Syria would be limited, would rely on cruise missiles fired from afar, would not put American bomber crews in harm’s way and would not require “boots on the ground.” Whether that promise will hold remains to be seen.

• There must be “reasonable assurance” that the military operations will be supported by the American people.

Of all the lessons to come out of the Vietnam experience, this may be the most important. Without wide public support, failure is almost guaranteed. As a chief of staff of the Army, Gen. Edward Meyer, once said: “Armies don’t fight wars, nations fight wars.”

• The commitment of U.S. forces to combat should be the last resort.

This test may be the most debated in the public and congressional consideration of the president’s request for authority to use force against Syria. Many Americans appear ready to argue that the president has not applied enough political and diplomatic pressure on the Syrian leaders.

In presenting his six points, Weinberger contended that “employing our forces almost indiscriminately and as a regular and customary part of our diplomatic effort would surely plunge us headlong into the sort of domestic turmoil we experienced during the Vietnam war.”

As if in reply, President Obama said Saturday afternoon: “A country faces few decisions as grave as using military force, even when that force is limited. I respect the views of those who call for caution, particularly as our country emerges from a time of war that I was elected in part to end.”

“But if we really do want to turn away from taking appropriate action in the face of such an unspeakable outrage,” Mr, Obama said, “then we must acknowledge the costs of doing nothing.”