An Act of War

Let’s be clear: launching missiles into another country is an act of war.  Imagine for a moment another country (take your pick) parking warships off our coast and then launching missiles into the United States.  That would be an act of war.  And we would not take it well.

We should also make no mistake about another thing.  This will be an illegal action in terms of international law.  Syria has not attacked us.  They have not threatened us.  They have not attacked or threatened our allies.  We have no treaty to live up to.  We do not have the approval of the United Nations.  Our attack of Syria will be illegal.

I understand the argument for acting.  The world should not allow a government to use chemical weapons against it’s citizens.  Civilians and children have been killed and we cannot just sit by and not react.  There is a moral imperative.  I have heard the argument made by the President and Secretary of State, and by Senator McCain and other Republicans.  There are Democrats and Republicans on both sides of this issue, and there are also liberals and conservatives on both sides. 

Although I understand the argument for taking action let me reiterate this will be an illegal act of war.  Further, it will be a unilateral action.  We are alone on the world stage.  Not only do the Chinese and Russians vigorously oppose our planned actions, so does most of the world, including our closest allies, the British.  As of this writing only ten countries are in support of our actions, but none of them are going to join us in taking action.

And it is not just the world.  Public opinion in the US is solidly against military action in Syria.  Americans want no part of this, as the President and Senator McCain have acknowledged.

It should be noted that this unilateral illegal act of war will not further any vital US national interests.  We are not striking Syria to ensure the free flow of oil at market prices; that is not an issue and if anything it will likely have the opposite effect.  There really is no vital US interest at stake here.  We are acting strictly on a perceived moral imperative.

The missiles we will be firing cost roughly a million dollars apiece.  Estimates are that we will be launching between 200-300 missiles if all goes well.  Ignoring all other costs, and assuming things go very well, the cost will be $200-$300 million dollars for missiles alone.  I realize this is not much in today’s money, but consider that this equates to 3 African vacations for the president.  And that is the cost of the missiles alone. Suffice it to say this will be a small part of the total cost.

As to the core reason for us to commit this act of war, it is of course the chemical weapons.  There are still two crucial questions.  Were chemical weapons used, and who used them?  I think it is safe to say the answer to the first question is yes.  Someone used chemical weapons.  We are told that it is foolish to think anyone other than the Assad regime used the weapons.  The administration says they have a high level of confidence.  Let me say I have no idea who used the weapons.  I do have a hard time understanding why Assad would use chemical weapons.  He was winning the civil war.  He knew it would bring international attention and likely US action.  Why on earth would he not just use conventional bombs?  What benefit was there to chemical weapons?

If you look at the rebels, it is clear that the apparent use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime benefitted their cause.  I have no idea, as I said, but it should be noted the Russian government claims to have proof it was the rebels.  Would they do such a thing against their own side?  We are not talking about moderate Syrians here.  We are talking about Al Qaeda.  Do they have the knowledge and ability to launch a chemical weapons attack?  When you consider they are backed by the Saudis, I would say it is possible.  I am not claiming any certainty here, just that our government has not fully made it’s case.  Americans have been burned before.  And while I am sounding like a wing nut conspiracy theorist, let me remind everyone that it was widely thought that Saddam Hussein moved his WMD’s out of the country before we got there….to Syria.

As has been widely discussed, what is going on in Syria is a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia for dominance in the region.  The rebel groups contain unsavory elements, and we have seen them in widely circulated videos torturing and assassinating government soldiers.  We have seen one of their leaders kill a man and literally eat his heart and liver.  These are crazy folks.  There is no need to belabor the point; these will be our allies.  Our actions will help their cause.  Yes, there are moderate Syrians as well, and Assad is a bad guy who needs to be removed from power.  But his replacement will not be anyone in a white hat.

We are all aware that the US will soon be having a showdown with Iran over their nuclear weapons program.  Saudi Arabia will welcome any action we take against Iran.  Although we have friendly relations with Saudi Arabia we should not make the mistake of thinking they are our friends.  They simply lie on the other side of the Islamic spectrum and so they are opposed to the Iranian side, and therefore they align with us.  And behind the scenes they regard us as the great Satan.  And they are funding a great deal of the unrest in that part of the world, including the infamous Al Qaeda.  They are the chief sponsors of the Syrian rebels.

In case you are not aware, Syria’s Christian community is against our involvement.  It seems Assad has been the one protecting them from the rebels.  Recently he made note that as the battles get more heated he may have to pull soldiers away from protecting Christian communities , which would make them vulnerable to attack by the rebels. 

If we are concerned about the chemical weapons (and Syria has the world’s largest stockpile), should we not make it one of our objectives to capture or destroy or somehow control those weapons?  One of the worst outcomes would be for the Al Qaeda rebels to gain control of those weapons and possibly use them against the west.  If we are going to take action I think this is one action that could be justified, but it would clearly require “boots on the ground”.  If you think about it, however, this war will not continue on forever and so there are really only a couple of possible outcomes.  Either Assad remains in power with his chemical weapons or the rebels take power and they would then control them.  Neither is an acceptable outcome.

As many folks have noted, although the death of some 1400 people through the use of chemical weapons is a tragedy, we must keep in mind some 100,000 people have died through more conventional means.  Their deaths are a tragedy too.

The international community is not heartless.  The British and others are horrified about the deaths of children.  Pope Francis is horrified at the deaths of children, and yet he opposes our action.  The Syrian Christian community is not heartless; they are horrified at the use of chemical weapons.  And yet they oppose our military action.  Even Mr. Putin, who I would not trust to do anything but protect his own self interests, must have a reason for opposing us in Syria.  Think about it; why does he support the Assad regime?  He supports Assad because he fears the alternative.  The rebels are not saints.

If we must act in Syria it would be nice to have a better strategy.  The notion that this will be limited, will not change the regime, will not remove the chemical weapons, and that there will not be any need for boots on the ground is far-fetched.  Syria might have something to say about that.  Unintended consequences are very real and war is not a neat and tidy thing.  It would also have been nice tactically not to have broadcast exactly what we are planning to the Syrians and then give them weeks to prepare.

There is a new plan I saw today being floated by Senator Joe Manchin that would give Assad 45 days to sign the chemical weapons treaty, or face our military intervention.  Hey, look everyone – diplomacy!  I think I would take that a step further and give him 45 days to hand over his entire stockpile of chemical weapons AND sign the treaty, thereby satisfying one of our goals.

The administration has not brought the Syrian issue in front of the United Nations for a vote because they know the Russians would block any action with their Security Council veto.  However, there is value in bringing this issue to the UN.  There is value in holding a vote.  The UN, although completely ineffective, is the right body to deal with this issue.  One would think that the Nobel Peace Prize winner would be eager to seek a peaceful, diplomatic solution.  Whether it is successful or not the US should try to get consensus before acting unilaterally.

Finally, let me be a little suspicious of motives here.  Again, nobody in the US caused the Syrian civil war or was involved in the use of chemical weapons.  Those things happened, and what we are doing is a reaction to them.  But I do want to point out that nobody is talking about shutting down the government over the debt ceiling.  Nobody is discussing the implementation of Obamacare. The economic news has taken a back seat.  If we are considering a military action the entire atmosphere in Washington changes.

And while I am being cynical, let me make a prediction.  There will be no military action.  Did it not seem odd that the most anti-war president in recent memory would suddenly become a hawk and consider launching a unilateral strike without UN or congressional approval?  Despite his “red line” statement and apparent success at finding a corner to be backed into in an oval office, I might suggest there was some grand theater involved.  Look at what may very well happen: the president, despite his best attempts, cannot get the world behind him and is thwarted once again by house Republicans who apparently don’t care about the gassing of innocent children.  Reluctantly, the president bows to Congress and does not get to launch an illegal, unilateral, unpopular, expensive, risky military strike against Syria that is not in US national interests and in which there is no good outcome.

Damn the luck.