Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[jmm99]

Timing of the Attack

Here are three sources on timing of the attack, which will be preceded by publication of a public report justifying the attack - presumably with arguments from OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) under international and national law (Responsibility to Protect; and Inherent Executive War Powers).

Exclusive: Syria strike due in days, West tells opposition (by Khaled Yacoub Oweis, AMMAN, Aug 27, 2013):

(Reuters) - Western powers have told the Syrian opposition to expect a strike against President Bashar al-Assad's forces within days, according to sources who attended a meeting between envoys and the Syrian National Coalition in Istanbul.

Obama orders release of report justifying Syria strike (by Major Garrett, David Martin, August 26, 2013):

(CBS News) President Barack Obama called his national security team together Saturday to talk about the next move in Syria. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper led off the three-hour White House meeting with detailed analysis of the evidence about the chemical weapons attack, the disposition of victims and what the administration now believes is a near air-tight circumstantial case that the Syrian regime was behind it.

Obama ordered a declassified report be prepared for public release before any military strike commences. That report, top advisers tell CBS News, is due to be released in a day or two.

US ready to launch Syria strike, says Chuck Hagel (BBC, 27 Aug 2013):

American forces are "ready" to launch strikes on Syria if President Barack Obama chooses to order an attack, US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel says.

"We have moved assets in place to be able to fulfil and comply with whatever option the president wishes to take," Mr Hagel told the BBC.

The Public Pitch

The Obama Administration's main thrust, aimed at the general public, will be as close as they can get to Marlon Brando's performance in Apocalypse Now -

... the Horror, the Horror ... (Youtube)

That probably will sell well enough to drum up, at least to begin with, a majority that will agree with the intervention.

The Targets

Logically, the targets would be Syria's chemical weapons facilities - as outlined in Jack Goldsmith's clip, George Friedman on Obama’s Bluff (by Jack Goldsmith, August 27, 2013); based on Stratfor's Obama's Bluff (by George Friedman, 27 Aug 2013):

The question therefore becomes what the United States and the new coalition of the willing will do if the red line has been crossed. The fantasy is that a series of airstrikes, destroying only chemical weapons, will be so perfectly executed that no one will be killed except those who deserve to die. But it is hard to distinguish a man's soul from 10,000 feet. There will be deaths, and the United States will be blamed for them.

The military dimension is hard to define because the mission is unclear. Logically, the goal should be the destruction of the chemical weapons and their deployment systems. This is reasonable, but the problem is determining the locations where all of the chemicals are stored. I would assume that most are underground, which poses a huge intelligence problem. If we assume that perfect intelligence is available and that decision-makers trust this intelligence, hitting buried targets is quite difficult. There is talk of a clean cruise missile strike. But it is not clear whether these carry enough explosives to penetrate even minimally hardened targets. Aircraft carry more substantial munitions, and it is possible for strategic bombers to stand off and strike the targets.

Even so, battle damage assessments are hard. How do you know that you have destroyed the chemicals -- that they were actually there and you destroyed the facility containing them? Moreover, there are lots of facilities and many will be close to civilian targets and many munitions will go astray. The attacks could prove deadlier than the chemicals did. And finally, attacking means al Assad loses all incentive to hold back on using chemical weapons. If he is paying the price of using them, he may as well use them. The gloves will come off on both sides as al Assad seeks to use his chemical weapons before they are destroyed.

But, and this is a big "but":

A war on chemical weapons has a built-in insanity to it. The problem is not chemical weapons, which probably can't be eradicated from the air. The problem under the definition of this war would be the existence of a regime that uses chemical weapons. It is hard to imagine how an attack on chemical weapons can avoid an attack on the regime -- and regimes are not destroyed from the air. Doing so requires troops. Moreover, regimes that are destroyed must be replaced, and one cannot assume that the regime that succeeds al Assad will be grateful to those who deposed him. One must only recall the Shia in Iraq who celebrated Saddam's fall and then armed to fight the Americans.

The President can no longer bluff; he must deliver something. Since targeting the immediate problem (chemical weapons) has serious pitfalls, and since targeting the ultimate problem (Assad) has even greater pitfalls, the likely targets will be military installations - perhaps, destroying the Syrian Air Force and its Air Defense system (as has been suggested). That would give both "adult" sides (Russia and the US) the opportunity to see how their weapons systems work against each other.

If that happens, will it end there ? We are likely to see how well President Obama resists the political temptation to follow with (1) regime removal and (2) regime change - state building.

Regardless, my little vote is unconditionally negative on all of the above.

Regards

Mike