Syria: the case for action

[TheCurmudgeon]

Dayuhan, You are not going to convince me that intervention in this case is unwise any more than I am going to convince you that it is the least bad choice. I guess you and I are going to have to agree to disagree ... or disagree on agreeing ... your choice.

JMM, regarding international law, there is no such beast. Why the President keeps referring international norms. Norms are generally agreed upon social conventions, like turning around and facing the doors when you get into an elevator. Laws are norms that everyone agrees are so important that they have been codified and breaking them results in punishing the offender. No such animal exist in the international sphere.

Holmes explains why this is - law is based on "actual feelings and demands of the community." This would require the world community to agree on how they feel about sovereignty or whether food and healthcare are reasonable demands of a states citizens. Since there is no internationally agreed upon common norms that are so important to every member of the group that they agree to create enforceable laws, there are none. The rest is all legal mambo-jumbo.

[wm]

regarding international law, there is no such beast. Why the President keeps referring international norms. Norms are generally agreed upon social conventions, like turning around and facing the doors when you get into an elevator. Laws are norms that everyone agrees are so important that they have been codified and breaking them results in punishing the offender. No such animal exist in the international sphere.

Holmes explains why this is - law is based on "actual feelings and demands of the community." This would require the world community to agree on how they feel about sovereignty or whether food and healthcare are reasonable demands of a states citizens. Since there is no internationally agreed upon common norms that are so important to every member of the group that they agree to create enforceable laws, there are none. The rest is all legal mambo-jumbo.

I think this is a little strong. Laws that are designed to regulate conduct are of little use unless an effective means to enforce them and/or punish their breach also exists. I submit that no effective international form of enforcement exists, not that no international law exists.

A lack of agreement about norms does not mean that those norms do not exist. Your claim is a variation of the fallacious argument from ignorance ("I do not know of any universally accepted norms so there aren't any" would be the basic argumentum ad ignorantiam) Perhaps folks simply have not reached the appropriate level of "mental maturity" to uncover those universally applicable norms. If evolutionists are correct, then humans and human relations are, after all, a work in progress.

[JMA]

There's still no clear, practical, achievable goal.

I would really appreciate you explaining how you were able to arrive at this conclusion.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I think this is a little strong. Laws that are designed to regulate conduct are of little use unless an effective means to enforce them and/or punish their breach also exists. I submit that no effective international form of enforcement exists, not that no international law exists.

... and as long as no effective international form of enforcement exists, it is not a "law" - only generally agreed upon norms of conduct. The defining characteristic of a law is that it is codified and it is enforceable. There is no enforcement mechanism, hence there is no law.

A lack of agreement about norms does not mean that those norms do not exist. Your claim is a variation of the fallacious argument from ignorance ("I do not know of any universally accepted norms so there aren't any" would be the basic argumentum ad ignorantiam) Perhaps folks simply have not reached the appropriate level of "mental maturity" to uncover those universally applicable norms. If evolutionists are correct, then humans and human relations are, after all, a work in progress.

I did not claim that there were no agreed upon international norms, only that none of those norms were important enough to all the relevant players to be turned into actual enforceable international laws. We have an international court but any country can opt out of its jurisdiction. The US opts out of war crimes when it comes to its Soldiers.

To boot, you throw in the fallacy of equivocation by confusing biological evolution with social evolution, unless you are claiming that people in certain parts of the world are not as biologically evolved as others are.

[davidbfpo]

An interesting column by Dr. John Bew, from Kings College, who next month starts as the Henry A Kissinger Chair in Foreign Policy and International Relations at the Library of Congress in Washington, DC:http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/08/syrian-atrocities

Another lesson from the Syrian conflict is that non-intervention does not work in a strategic vacuum. To be successful, the policy needs to be more than a checklist of arguments against intervention. Counterintuitively, as Britain’s most anti-interventionist foreign secretary, Lord Castlereagh, recognised, it requires a credible threat of force.....

With deep reluctance, Barack Obama has been forced to reach the same conclusion, but his reticence and equivocation over a long period have left him at the mercy of events. It is hard to lead from behind when you don’t even want to look.

[Dayuhan]

I would really appreciate you explaining how you were able to arrive at this conclusion.

Probably the same way that retired MG Robert Scales reached this conclusion:

So far, at least, this path to war violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective.

That conclusion was reached (in my case at least) by reading the various statements made by those who articulate objectives. For the overall policy objective, we have the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

"It is the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria so as to create favourable conditions for a negotiated settlement that ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria"

Does anybody think that the proposed strikes - or anything else the US is going to do in 90 days without putting boots on the ground - is going to end the conflict and lead to a democratic government in Syria? Does anybody think that firing a few hundred missiles at Syrian military targets is going to advance that objective in any significant way? If so, why?

For the specific goals of this proposed strike, General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

“To deter, that is to say change the regime’s calculus about the use of chemical weapons, and degrade his ability to do so”

That is a very nebulous goal. We don't know what "the regime's calculus about the use of chemical weapons" is, and we have very little idea how the regime will react. Any assumption about how others will react to a given action is by nature speculative and uncertain. Will they be deterred, or provoked? I don't know, neither do you, neither does anyone else.

I do not see "maybe if we blow some stuff up they'll stop being bad" as a clear, practical, and achievable goal. Do you?

I suspect that the actual goal is to stage a demonstration to show that the administration backs up its less that judicious (IMO) "red line" comments with action. That might be clear, practical, and achievable (smart is another question) if it were clearly stated, but of course it hasn't been and will not be.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Probably the same way that retired MG Robert Scales reached this conclusion

MG (Ret) Scales is presenting the opinion of certain members of the Army who don't like being pushed to the background and would prefer a boots-on-the-ground solution - Destroy the Syrian Army.


The Senate Foreign Relations Committee does not set foreign policy, so what they say (or more correctly, what SEN John McCain says) is not our policy objective.

Our policy objective is to deter or eliminate Assad's use of chemical weapons.

That is a very nebulous goal. We don't know what "the regime's calculus about the use of chemical weapons" is, and we have very little idea how the regime will react.

There is nothing nebulous about the goal. It is a very clear goal. However, you confuse the goal with the ways and means used to achieve the goal, two very separate things.

Any assumption about how others will react to a given action is by nature speculative and uncertain. Will they be deterred, or provoked? I don't know, neither do you, neither does anyone else.

Maybe not, but you don't know what inaction will bring either. I can say with fair confidence that inaction will not deter or eliminate Assad's use of chemical weapons. So inaction gets us no closer to our goal.

I do not see "maybe if we blow some stuff up they'll stop being bad" as a clear, practical, and achievable goal. Do you?

That depends on what you blow up.

I suspect that the actual goal is to stage a demonstration to show that the administration backs up its less that judicious (IMO) "red line" comments with action. That might be clear, practical, and achievable (smart is another question) if it were clearly stated, but of course it hasn't been and will not be.

I would agree that this is part of the goal. I don't see how that is a bad thing. If the US is going to make military threats it needs to be prepared to back them up. The fact that we are doing it in such an overt fashion means that the target audience extends beyond the boarders of Syria. Just food for thought.

[jmm99]

Does anyone have historical examples where A, who has used WMD, has been deterred from their future use by some act of B ?

I can think of WWII (Roosevelt's "no first use of gas", but with retaliatory threat of responsive use) and the Cold War (mutual assured destruction); but neither of them really fits the case I described - actual first use by A and then what did B actually do to deter A.

I suppose you could put up the opening stage of OIF (toppling the regime and killing / detaining the leaders) as something of an example (leaving aside the obvious problem of WMD existence and use in 2003 vs earlier).

Does anyone have a neat example of WMD deterrence, after first use, without a ground war ?

Regards

Mike,

[TheCurmudgeon]

Jim, the problem you present is one of the dog that does not bark. It is difficult to prove that deterrence works.

Perhaps the only example I can offer is the Cuban missile crisis.

[jmm99]

Cuban missile crisis - close example, even though the Soviets-Cubans did not "first use" the WMD; nor did the US "first use" its nukes in Italy and Turkey. From the Russian perspective, it was the Turkish missile crisis.

1. MAD threatened by both sides (threats appear to have been real).

2. Case settled out of court; USSR gave up the Cuban missiles; US gave up the Turkish and Italian missiles; otherwise, status quo ante.

In that case, the power grip of the Russky ally (Castro) was actually strengthened by the outcome. On the other hand, it made Jack Kennedy look damn good to most Americans. He looked good to me at the time.

President Kennedy's statement:

I consider my letter to you of October twenty-seventh and your reply of today as firm undertakings on the part of both our governments which should be promptly carried out ... The US will make a statement in the framework of the Security Council in reference to Cuba as follows: it will declare that the United States of America will respect the inviolability of Cuban borders, its sovereignty, that it take the pledge not to interfere in internal affairs, not to intrude themselves and not to permit our territory to be used as a bridgehead for the invasion of Cuba, and will restrain those who would plan to carry an aggression against Cuba, either from US territory or from the territory of other countries neighboring to Cuba.

Where does all of that take us ?

Regards

Mike

[Dayuhan]

Our policy objective is to deter or eliminate Assad's use of chemical weapons.

There is nothing nebulous about the goal. It is a very clear goal. However, you confuse the goal with the ways and means used to achieve the goal, two very separate things.

A clear idea of what you want with no clear idea of how to get it delivers very little clarity. We have no idea what Assad's tolerance for punishment is, neither have we any idea of the extent to which he believes his survival depends on the use of chemical weapons. There's nothing even vaguely resembling MAD (which really did deter, for obvious reasons) here, nobody's proposing to destroy anyone. The extent of the action proposed seems calibrated to what Americans are willing to accept (and what will let the President say he backed up his threat) than to what will realistically deter or degrade Assad's capabilities.

Maybe not, but you don't know what inaction will bring either. I can say with fair confidence that inaction will not deter or eliminate Assad's use of chemical weapons. So inaction gets us no closer to our goal.

What's more important, the goal of deterring the use of chemical weapons or the goal of keeping the country out of a war that serves no American interest? I don't think anybody missed Kerry's comment about how the option of boots on the ground should be retained in the event of complete chaos. Given that complete chaos is a substantial probability no matter who wins or doesn't, do we really want to be taking steps down that road? It's not like we haven't let the use of chemical weapons pass unchallenged before; we have and everyone knows it. The only message we can realistically send is that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable to us except when it suits out interests.

I would agree that this is part of the goal. I don't see how that is a bad thing. If the US is going to make military threats it needs to be prepared to back them up. The fact that we are doing it in such an overt fashion means that the target audience extends beyond the boarders of Syria. Just food for thought.

Well, if we have to launch a hundred missiles because our President inserted his foot in his mouth, maybe we have to. Do we need to pretend that it's going to deter anything, or change the momentum on the battlefield, or lead to a negotiated settlement?

I guess maybe we do; pretense being an apparent requirement in public diplomacy. Maybe we'll get lucky and Congress will vote it down (getting him off the hook), or if they don't, maybe we'll get very lucky and not get sucked any deeper in. Not sure I like the odds on that, but as always my opinion means exactly nothing.

[JMA]

Dayuhan, You are not going to convince me that intervention in this case is unwise any more than I am going to convince you that it is the least bad choice. I guess you and I are going to have to agree to disagree ... or disagree on agreeing ... your choice.

Reminds me of your exchange with him a year ago:

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...&postcount=624

100,000 dead, 2m refugees later. Then was the time to nip this in the bud.

[JMA]

Probably the same way that retired MG Robert Scales reached this conclusion:

Nah... Don't accept that you have access to those in the Administration/Pentagon/other that set goals/objectives/targets for such operations.

Obama said the following when in Sweden:

"But we can send a very clear, strong message against the prohibition -- or in favor of the prohibition against using chemical weapons. We can change Assad’s calculus about using them again. We can degrade his capabilities so that he does not use them again. And so what I’m talking about is an action that is limited in time and in scope, targeted at the specific task of degrading his capabilities and deterring the use of those weapons again."

http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/l...pt-4-2013.html

Back to what you said:

"There's still no clear, practical, achievable goal"

Clear ... Yes

Practical ... Yes

Achievable ... Yes - with some difficulty, but as long as the politicians don't try to micro-manage the implementation the US military have the ability to do the job.

[TheCurmudgeon]

What's more important, the goal of deterring the use of chemical weapons or the goal of keeping the country out of a war that serves no American interest?

That is a false dichotomy. Deterring the use of chemical weapons IS in the interest of America.

Speaking as a Soldier, I HATE chemical weapons. Anything we do to keep anyone in the world from using those weapons is something I am in favor of.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Reminds me of your exchange with him a year ago:

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...&postcount=624

100,000 dead, 2m refugees later. Then was the time to nip this in the bud.

Dayuhan, Fuchs, and Madhu provide a needed counterpoint to those of us who might be inclined to see the military option as the best option. Without them this board would be overtly one sided. While I don't agree with everything he says, I will defend to the death - OK, maybe not THAT far, but at least to the point of typing this message - their voice on this site.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Where does all of that take us ?

I don't know. I am always skeptical of using lessons from the past. This is because personalities of leaders matter too much. Would the results have been different is Putin had been in charge? In addition, what was acceptable to the American people forty years ago may no longer be acceptable now. Add to that the global internet and the ability of videos from the war one to be on tonight's news (remember the American Soldier's bodies being dragged threw the streets of Mogadishu) you get a different world. Could we have sustained our support for Korea if that kind of reporting was available of the Chosen valley debacle?

I don't know if there is any example from the past that can be applied directly to this situation. Even if there was, I am not sure it would be relevant.

[JMA]

Dayuhan, Fuchs, and Madhu provide a needed counterpoint to those of us who might be inclined to see the military option as the best option. Without them this board would be overtly one sided. While I don't agree with everything he says, I will defend to the death - OK, maybe not THAT far, but at least to the point of typing this message - their voice on this site.

Exactly! ... and you have right to allow yourself to be bored to death in the process

[Bill Moore]

That is a false dichotomy. Deterring the use of chemical weapons IS in the interest of America.

Speaking as a Soldier, I HATE chemical weapons. Anything we do to keep anyone in the world from using those weapons is something I am in favor of.

Most of us hate IEDs also, which is exactly why our adversaries use them. We have a low probability of deterring their use, just as we have failed to defeat IED networks and deter their use because they're effective. When we base our strategy on defeating a tactical weapon (nukes are different) instead of defeating our adversary we are probably off course.

[Bill Moore]

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08...n-spark-wwiii/

US military intervention in Syria can lead to WWIII: Analyst

“US military involvement [in Syria] obviously would not resolve the crisis. It would just make it worse as always happens when the US military gets involved in parts of the world where it has no business being,” said Kevin Barrett in a Saturday interview with Press TV.


“This is a dangerous move because we’re really on the edge of a potential World War III in Syria. The region is being destabilized more and more at every moment,” he pointed out.

Perhaps, but I see it a little differently.

WWIII was our war, largely consisted of proxy wars around the globe, with the USSR (Cold War).

WWIV is our global war against Islamic Extremists, and an intervention in Syria would most likely be a huge mess, but it would be part of the current conflict, so perhaps better qualified as a major campaign within WWIV.

Since the Bush administration linked our invasion of Iraq under the WOT then Syria should also fit. It is already a national civil war that is part of the larger regional civil war between Sunnis and Shia (and others), and it already a proxy war for a number of countries who are leveraging the Civil War to pursue their national interests.

[JMA]

I don't know. I am always skeptical of using lessons from the past. This is because personalities of leaders matter too much. Would the results have been different is Putin had been in charge? In addition, what was acceptable to the American people forty years ago may no longer be acceptable now. Add to that the global internet and the ability of videos from the war one to be on tonight's news (remember the American Soldier's bodies being dragged threw the streets of Mogadishu) you get a different world. Could we have sustained our support for Korea if that kind of reporting was available of the Chosen valley debacle?

I don't know if there is any example from the past that can be applied directly to this situation. Even if there was, I am not sure it would be relevant.

There are always arguments from elsewhere to be considered. Like this for instance:

Must intervention be legal?
http://www.economist.com/node/2970169

And this:

Intervention to Stop Genocide and Mass Atrocities
http://www.cfr.org/genocide/interven...ocities/p20379