Another strategic blunder was U.S. complicity in the fall of Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi, who had renounced both his anti-Western zeal and his pursuit of nuclear weapons in exchange for being left alone. Then we reneged on that accommodation and sent a message throughout the world of Islam that we are a nation that can’t be trusted to adhere to a deal.

Another strategic blunder was the decision to turn the anti-Taliban effort in Afghanistan into a campaign to pacify the Afghan countryside through anti-insurgency initiatives aimed at homogenizing the tribes, clans, ethnic groups and sectarian sensibilities of that nation under a central government that never has held sway over the countryside—and likely never will.

Meanwhile, throughout the time span of these strategic blunders Al Qaeda has metastasized into six regional branches that have affiliations with at least fourteen other terrorists groups, according to a Virginia-based research organization called IntelCenter, which adds that these groups and affiliations operate in at least thirty countries, including Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Mali, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and even Spain and Germany.

And now the president proposes another military initiative against an Arab leader who never sought to rule as an Islamist, who has never threatened America, and who is beset by an opposition that includes serious Islamist-terrorist elements who would destroy America if they could.

As you ponder your forthcoming congressional vote, you should focus on two further elements of the equation. First, history tells us that military actions unleash responses, reprisals, forces, pressures and consequences that are never foreseen. Obama is telling the American people that this little war (he won’t call it that, of course) will be quick, easy and trouble-free. Don’t believe it. Wars are almost never trouble-free, particularly wars in today’s Middle Eastern hotbed of powerful cultural sensibilities. Obama’s war will unleash counter-actions that could require counter-counter-actions. And then we will be in an escalatory situation. Nobody can know where that would lead.

Second, the American people are strongly against Obama’s proposed war, as seen clearly in public opinion surveys. A September 6 report from Gallup showed 51 percent of respondents in a recent poll opposed the action, while 36 percent favored it. Gallup says Obama’s proposed action is the "most unpopular potential conflict in the past 20 years." A Pew Research Center poll had opposition at 48 percent, while only 29 percent supported the action. About the same time, an ABC/Washington Post poll had opposition at 59 percent.

As a member of the Congress, you really shouldn’t ignore such numbers. Sometimes it is necessary to go against public opinion in your state or district, as difficult as that is. But when it comes to war, it is not merely politically dangerous, but also dangerous for the nation, to enter hostilities for which there is little political support. It’s difficult enough to ensure success in war efforts when the nation is behind them. Going to war without public support is a recipe for failure.

Finally, if none of this compels you to vote against the resolution, ask yourself this question: What would Osama bin Laden want America to do at this juncture? Would his interest be served by a cautious America wary of dropping ever more bombs upon Islamic soil in the Middle East on the preening pretext of humanitarianism? Or would he want America to get itself even more thoroughly enmeshed in the region, demonstrating its proclivity to direct events there and project itself as a superior power and superior culture? For the man who wanted an ongoing showdown struggle between the West and Islam, the answer would be easy: The forces pressing for ever more American intrusion into the Islamic world, dismissive of the cultural sensibilities of that great body of humanity, are playing into the hands of the dead Al Qaeda leader, as indeed America did when it invaded Iraq.

Assuming still that you are that member of Congress facing this week’s big vote, the answer is clear. Vote no, and then enjoy a good night’s sleep.

Robert W. Merry is political editor of The National Interest and the author of books on American history and foreign policy. His most recent book is Where They Stand: The American Presidents in the Eyes of Voters and Historians.

Image: Wikimedia Commons/Deror Avi. CC BY-SA 3.0.