Syria: the case for action

[jcustis]

And that is where political science is rich with a history of miscalculations...where a state took an action, believing it would influence an opponent in a certain way but found out later that it never had the true pulse of the opponent.

The US isn't even in a position to take a gamble right now because it looks like Assad caught a good flop, checked into an even better turn card, and watched the US flinch when the river was shown.

He has to be chuckling right now. That, or he is very confused and worried at the mood swings he is seeing as this unfolds.

In order to prevent an adversary from thinking they got away with something (using chem) in violation of certain norms (yeah, I'm still struggling to figure out why 1,400
now matter so much), a response has to be more than swift. If this is going to go down from a stand-off, it needs to destroy something Assad holds dear, and I'm not so sure chem munitions fall into that category.

I think it also needs to be something other than chem, where the message is, "Those missiles just schwacked X,Y, and Z. Try to use more of X, Y, and Z again, and there will be more attacks."

I wouldn't target the chem because Assad doesn't need it to continue fighting. At this stage it wouldn't make sense for Assad to employ chem again unless it was part of the FPF. He can avoid using it and still chug along slowly in the fight.

If armor and artillery are already fairly dispersed at the moment, even 96 Tomahawks would have limited effect. I doubt aircraft wouldl be a more lucrative target because I have not read anything that indicated FW or RW a/c are making a significant impact.

SAM systems are traditionally more difficult to disperse often and still use effectively, but it wouldn't make sense to target that asset unless an air phase is expected.

I don't think we're at the point of selecting personalities either, so I am actually at a loss for what makes for a good target within Syria right now.

Does anyone agree with Gen "Spider" Marks, who has bern going on and on over at CNN about the US going after chem stocks? In light of the path this has taken, does anyone think it males sense to go after those capabilities?

[jmm99]

From the WSJ (link); also a clean pdf file is attached.

Analyzing this in reverse order, section (b)(1) sanctions the President's powers under the War Powers Resolution:

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.-

(1) Specific Statutory Authorization.-Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

What are the scope of presidential powers granted by this AUMF (a rather typical AUMF) ?

(a) Authorization.-The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria in order to-

(1) prevent or deter the use or proliferation (including the transfer to terrorist groups of other state or non-state actors), within, to or from, Syria, of any weapons of mass destruction, including chemical or biological weapons or components of or materials used in such weapons; or

(2) protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.

Has Congress ever shot down an AUMF requested by a President ?

While the President is taking some risk here (of an adverse vote), the AUMF gives him far broader powers than his proposal to shoot off some missiles (whether 24 or 240). Looking ahead, the operative clauses (a) & (b) could provide something of a precedent for a future Iran resolution.

I'd vote against this particular AUMF (because of my personal worldview); but my bet is that Congress will go along with it. If that happens, the legal basis for "responsibility to protect" will be expanded to include intervention by an individual state. R2P has been viewed as requiring UNSC approval - or at least regional organization approval.

Regards

Mike

[davidbfpo]

Curious timing, a Scottish newspaper says:

BRITAIN allowed firms to sell chemicals to Syria capable of being used to make nerve gas, the Sunday Mail can reveal today. Export licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began. The chemical is capable of being used to make weapons such as sarin....

Link:http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk...micals-2242520

Yes the chemicals have an industrial use, aluminium windows!

[davidbfpo]

Curious timing, a Scottish newspaper says:

Link:http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk...micals-2242520

Yes the chemicals have an industrial use, aluminium windows!

The FCO official response, via Twitter:

The licences were revoked & the chemicals were not exported.

[graphei]

Reuters is reporting the Arab League is backing intervention in Syria.

I read this headline and I got a bit giddy. I was expecting them to weigh in on their onetime member. So, I click on the link and begin reading.

Syria's neighbors Lebanon and Iraq, as well as Algeria, all declined to back the text, as they have done with similar resolutions in the past. Syria itself is suspended from the League.

Okay, not surprising, so maybe Egypt and Saudi Arabia agreed.

Egypt, which has been promised $5 billion by Saudi Arabia to bolster its dwindling reserves since the army overthrew Islamist president Mohamed Mursi, had said it was opposed to foreign military intervention in Syria, but did not vote against the resolution.

The Saudi Arabians bribed the Egyptians?! Say it ain't so! Quelle horreur.

So, of the 21 states represented in the Arab League all of the key players have said no (or were paid off) and Saudi Arabia essentially pushed this through. What about the other 16 states you ask? My response: Do you really think Yemen and Djibouti can hold up against Saudi Arabia?

Ultimately, this should read: "Saudi Arabia votes for intervention in Syria." However, this is interesting. With some Western nations declining to get involved, do you think we'll see Arab nations take the lead?

[jcustis]

This will be infteresting. Egypt and Turkey are in a war of words at the moment over the coup and suppression of the Muslim Brotherhood, and have recalled ambassadors.

Turkey has just as much a mind to influence the run up to a Syrian intervention and aftermath as the kingdom does, but there are a lot of other incentives that can drive policy, like reconstruction dollar that Turkey stands to gain. Jordan is in the same boat.

I think we all need to buckle in and prepare for the landscape of the Middle East to be irrevocably altered across the next 6-12 months.

[Bill Moore]

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/69275...#axzz2dhRDi1hk

Efforts by Saudi Arabia and Syrian opposition leaders to convince the organisation to back a US military strike failed. Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Tunisia and Algeria voiced opposition to foreign military intervention.

Mr Obama had hoped the organisation would endorse language that could back a military operation without the approval of the UN Security Council. But the Arab world remains starkly divided on Syria and hostile to further US-led wars in the region despite widespread public sympathy for Mr Assad’s opponents.

We can act unilaterally, but I suspect it won't accomplish much if we don't get support from the regional actors. In fact it would be better for an Arab country to take the lead and we support, but the odds of that happening are politely very slim.

[jcustis]

I wonder if Egypt would have played a more central figure at the conference if Mubarak was still in power, and whether it would have been an advocate for action AND a military response.

My intuition tells me yes, and this whole Arab League resolution highlights how weak in is regionally. Egypt can get away with offering tepid support to "somebody" doing "something", while not being seen as supporting US aims, because the administration has backed off on any diplomatic pressure. The US has backed off on a lot of things with Egypt because it has become very important to not piss off the provisional government (army), or put it in any undesirable public position in the eyes of its citizens.

The nature of our relationship with Egypt will morph and shift considerably during the next 6-12 months too.

The diplomats have got to be working in overdrive right now. I hope they are all on message.

[JMA]

Bill, that surely depends on what you want to accomplish, yes?

I learned that the first principle of war was "the selection and maintenance of the aim" which the Americans changed to "Objective".

You see the Brit use of "maintenance" rules out what is now called "mission creep". (But that is another story)

So let's stick with the yanks and the word "objective".

What would the objective of a Syria intervention be?

How and who would (or should be punished) for using chemical weapons? IMHO, around that "objective" should be set.

Bombing the hell out of a bunch of Syrian facilities and/or killing a few thousand Syrian grunts would achieve what exactly when those who made the decision to use these weapons go free?

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/69275...#axzz2dhRDi1hk

We can act unilaterally, but I suspect it won't accomplish much if we don't get support from the regional actors. In fact it would be better for an Arab country to take the lead and we support, but the odds of that happening are politely very slim.