When deciding whether or not to kill people and break things, it is probably wise not to rely on slogans.
Our government has not yet begun lobbing cruise missiles into Syria, but anyone who listened to John Kerry and Barak Obama speak on the subject on Friday is probably convinced that we are going to do so. It is a fairly complicated matter, and there are serious considerations involved. Instead of slogans, I would like to take a quick look at the issues and motivations involved.
First a quick review. Syria is ruled by Bashar al-Assad, who took over after the death of his father in 2000 after his father had ruled Syria from 1970-2000. The government is not democratic; it is run by the Ba’athist party. I think it is fair to say Assad is a dictator and an all around bad guy. The Assad regime is backed by Iran and Hezbollah and is aligned with Shiite Muslims. It also has the backing of Russia.
The Syrian civil war started in March 2011 with demonstrations that were part of the Arab Spring. Moderate secular Syrians wanted a democratic government and they demanded that Assad step down. He refused to do so and things turned violent. These moderate forces were joined by Sunni Muslim groups, including those aligned with Al Qaeda. They are supported by countries such as Saudi Arabia.
The war has killed over 100,000 people including civilian men, women and children. Assad is accused of using chemicals weapons on his people twice, including the most recent attacks in which some 1400+ people died.
President Obama went on the record saying that the use of chemical weapons would cross a line and change the US position on the conflict. Since chemical weapons have been used, it is said the president has been “backed into a corner”.
With that quick backdrop, let’s take a look at the factors involved in making a decision regarding the use of US military force in Syria.
Moral/Ethical
Economic
Political/Popular
Legal/Diplomatic
Pragmatic/Tactical
Strategic
The moral or ethical concerns are pretty straightforward. Chemical weapons have been used on civilians. 100,000 people have died. This is a horrible, bloody, nasty war and it is difficult to justify sitting by and doing nothing to stop it. Comparisons can be drawn to the holocaust of the Jews in Nazi Germany or the genocides that have occurred in Africa. If there is a moral imperative for us to act, then this consideration may trump all of the others.
Economic considerations include the cost of war. We are heavily in debt and missiles and warfare cost a lot of money. There also needs to be consideration of the cost to our economy. The stock market is tanking in anticipation of war. There is the possibility that oil supplies could be affected.
Polls show Americans are not in favor of military action in Syria. Our allies are not with us. It would be a pretty unpopular action and would therefore have political consequences. There are no doubt also political considerations to be considered if no action is taken. Weakness is also unpopular.
The Legal justifications for going to war would include treaty obligations, UN resolutions, international accords, etc. This may be a tough one to justify. There is some question about whether the president needs congressional approval, whether he needs UN approval, or whether he can act under NATO or just take action unilaterally. It would be prudent for him to get others countries on board.
The pragmatic and tactical details involve whether or not we know where the chemicals weapons are, whether we have enough missiles to take them out, and what, exactly, we are capable of doing and what we are not. It is all well and good to want to do something and to have the legal authority and popular support and coalitions, but if you do not have the means then it is a moot point.
Finally, there are strategic considerations. What are we trying to accomplish? What is our exit strategy? What will be the result of us achieving our goals, and what will happen if we fail? These are extremely tough questions to answer.
Now that we have taken a general look at the considerations, let’s look at some more specific questions.
Why are we attacking Syria? 1) Because chemical weapons were used against civilians. 2) Because President Obama drew a line in the sand and does not want to lose face. There has not been any claim that we need to attack to stop the war or change the regime, or because of the large number of dead. We are not living up to a treaty obligation or enforcing UN resolutions.
What is our goal? 1) To punish the Assad regime for using chemical weapons. There has been no mention of stopping the war, or toppling the Assad regime. There has been no claim that we can wipe out his capacity to use chemical weapons. We are not attacking to ensure the free flow of oil at market prices.
Can we achieve our goal? Since all we claim to be doing is sending a shot across the bow of the Assad regime, yes. Any missile strike will “punish” Assad – if that is our only goal.
Can we control the outcome? Absolutely not. The Syrians will want to strike back. The Russians will want to punish us for acting. Hezbollah may plan terrorist actions as a response. We could easily be drawn further into the conflict if they directly attack, for example, our warships.
Is there an end game/exit strategy? It appears the idea is to throw missiles into Syria for a few days and then come back home. No boots on the ground. We do not plan to use aircraft to establish a no-fly zone. Assuming no retaliation or unforeseen events; (which is unlikely), we would just sail back home.
In my opinion the current plan is ludicrous. War is hell, and it is a messy and unpredictable business. If we had as a goal toppling the Assad regime and eliminating their chemical weapons and establishing a democratic secular Syrian government then there could be a moral and strategic justification for military action. That would of course require considerably more commitment to the process than we are making now. The American people and the world do not apparently have the stomach for that type of conflict.
Granted, the president finds himself in a complicated and difficult position. He drew a line in the sand and Assad called his bluff. He now feels backed into a corner and as a result he wants to carry through on his threat with the least amount of action possible to save face and no more. This is a terrible idea.
This has become a war between two Muslim groups, with a small group of moderate Syrians hoping for a democratic Syria. Even if we toppled the Assad regime there would still be another civil war to fight, between the Sunni (Al Qaeda) elements and moderate Syrians, with the Assad regime elements still hanging around. Sometimes when there are no good options doing nothing is the best thing.
From the New York Times:
Pope Francis is calling for dialogue:
UN inspectors have been allowed in to investigate the chemical attacks. There is a question about who launched the chemical attack.
From ABC News:
From The Guardian:
From The Washington Times:
Here is the US government’s justification:
Business Insider points out there are problems with our legal justification for attacking Syria:
From The Washington Post, the military has reservations about striking Syria:
After the British Parliament voted not to authorize British military forces to strike Syria, the media did some “jabbing”
Assad’s son taunted President Obama on Facebook:
Reuters says Americans are not on board:
The Russians and Chinese walked out of UN talks on Syria:
Charles Krauthammer had a great editorial:
Lots of people think this is a bad idea:
In summary we should not take unilateral action against Syria at this time, for the following reasons.
1) We are not sure who used chemical weapons yet.
2) There is no clear legal justification for US military action against Syria.
3) Our allies and the international community are not behind this; we have no UN sanction.
4) The president has not gotten congressional approval for military action.
5) We have telegraphed our moves and degraded our tactical capabilities.
6) It is impossible to control the outcome once a conflict begins.
7) We are not seeking regime change or any clear strategic goal.
8) It is not in our economic interests to do so.
9) The American people are war weary and not behind these actions.
10) We cannot ensure we will degrade their chemical weapons capabilities or that they will not be used again.
11) There is really no good outcome, regardless of our actions or who wins.
I hope the administration takes a step back and reconsiders it’s plans.
No comments:
Post a Comment