Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[Bill Moore]

JMA,

I don't recall seeing these posts, but they are great insights. I think we put blind faith and too much emphasis on surrogates or using the buzz phrase "through, by and with" approach. This approach certainly has application in some cases, but it is not want we should depend upon for our national security. As you correctly point, militarizing a populace to pursue our goals can have long term negative blow back against our national interests. Perhaps removing Qaddafi unilaterally with U.S. or NATO forces without supporting a rebellion would have been a much better option. This is one reason I argued against providing support to rebels in Syria, we would never provide enough to be decisive, and our aid would simply prolong the conflict resulting a war like society that ultimately makes stabilizing the region much, much harder.

[JMA]

Bill, IMHO there is also a place for the use of surrogates but with the caveat that the potential for a spill over of unintended consequences have been carefully considered.

I have mentioned - in a simplistic manner - the potential for accurately targeted interventions against the individual causing of problems. JMA's 3-Cruise-Missile-Option.

I continue to be amazed how the Gaddafi, Assad etc etc can get away with unspeakable crimes and not be held personally responsible while thousands of their countrymen are killed by them and again later in the process of trying to dislodge them.

So while I have stated way back that the rebels in Syria should not have been armed I did advocate that a personalized strike on Assad himself would be quite acceptable.

It is not that I am so smart but rather that so many in decision making positions are so damn stupid.

JMA,

I don't recall seeing these posts, but they are great insights. I think we put blind faith and too much emphasis on surrogates or using the buzz phrase "through, by and with" approach. This approach certainly has application in some cases, but it is not want we should depend upon for our national security. As you correctly point, militarizing a populace to pursue our goals can have long term negative blow back against our national interests. Perhaps removing Qaddafi unilaterally with U.S. or NATO forces without supporting a rebellion would have been a much better option. This is one reason I argued against providing support to rebels in Syria, we would never provide enough to be decisive, and our aid would simply prolong the conflict resulting a war like society that ultimately makes stabilizing the region much, much harder.

[Maeda Toshiie]

Bill, IMHO there is also a place for the use of surrogates but with the caveat that the potential for a spill over of unintended consequences have been carefully considered.

I have mentioned - in a simplistic manner - the potential for accurately targeted interventions against the individual causing of problems. JMA's 3-Cruise-Missile-Option.

I continue to be amazed how the Gaddafi, Assad etc etc can get away with unspeakable crimes and not be held personally responsible while thousands of their countrymen are killed by them and again later in the process of trying to dislodge them.

So while I have stated way back that the rebels in Syria should not have been armed I did advocate that a personalized strike on Assad himself would be quite acceptable.

It is not that I am so smart but rather that so many in decision making positions are so damn stupid.

Is that even possible? I highly doubt the necessary intel for real time targeting is available.

[JMA]

Is that even possible? I highly doubt the necessary intel for real time targeting is available.

The theory (my theory) is that you may not actually kill him (the targeted leader) but you will drive him underground and make life as intolerable for him as he has made it for his subjects.

Let me give you a very broad summary of events...

The 3-cruise missile theory.

The first missile is aimed at a strategic military target. Something like the most loyal troops like a Presidential Guard or the like. This makes the point that troops loyal to the 'target' can and will be targeted.

The second missile is aimed that the official residence of the 'target' at 24 hours notice. He won't be there when it arrives but the message will be clear.

The third missle will be reserved for a strike on the target. A reward of $1m (or more) will be promised for information on the location of the 'target' leading to a successful strike on him but probably won't be used.

As with Gadaffi and Saddam who moved a few times a day to avoid being in one place long enough to offer a target the strain becomes unbearable (as these people are used to the world revolving around them in their time and not having to keep moving out of fear for their lives). The result is that even their supporters avoid them as they do not wish to be collateral damage in the event of a strike and they themselves begin to trust no one and eventually offer a nice isolated target for a strike or a visit from a special forces team.

The result... let the target fell the fear and don't end up having many thousands of civilians killed to get at the 'target' when the message will be clearly transmitted to the one who is the cause of all the problems that there is a cruise missile with his name on it.

If the use of quid pro quo cruise missile strikes had been used (in the manner I suggested) in Syria the regime could have/ would have been put under sever pressure without having to arm the rebels (and we know hat a stupid policy that has been).

[Dayuhan]

The theory (my theory) is that you may not actually kill him (the targeted leader) but you will drive him underground and make life as intolerable for him as he has made it for his subjects.

Let me give you a very broad summary of events...

The 3-cruise missile theory.

The first missile is aimed at a strategic military target. Something like the most loyal troops like a Presidential Guard or the like. This makes the point that troops loyal to the 'target' can and will be targeted.

The second missile is aimed that the official residence of the 'target' at 24 hours notice. He won't be there when it arrives but the message will be clear.

The third missle will be reserved for a strike on the target. A reward of $1m (or more) will be promised for information on the location of the 'target' leading to a successful strike on him but probably won't be used.

As with Gadaffi and Saddam who moved a few times a day to avoid being in one place long enough to offer a target the strain becomes unbearable (as these people are used to the world revolving around them in their time and not having to keep moving out of fear for their lives). The result is that even their supporters avoid them as they do not wish to be collateral damage in the event of a strike and they themselves begin to trust no one and eventually offer a nice isolated target for a strike or a visit from a special forces team.

The result... let the target fell the fear and don't end up having many thousands of civilians killed to get at the 'target' when the message will be clearly transmitted to the one who is the cause of all the problems that there is a cruise missile with his name on it.

If the use of quid pro quo cruise missile strikes had been used (in the manner I suggested) in Syria the regime could have/ would have been put under sever pressure without having to arm the rebels (and we know hat a stupid policy that has been).

Ok, so you've fired off your three missiles. The dictator goes underground, his army disperses. They issue a statement telling you to stick your missiles where the sun don't shine, and proceed to do more of whatever it was you objected to in the first place. Your bluff has been called. Now what do you do? Do you escalate, and (assuming you're in the awkward position of leading a democracy) face the wrath of your populace and rest of the political edifice? Do you back down? Or do you just stand there buck naked with your putz shriveling in a cold breeze?

I can't see how it's a good idea to start firing off missiles based on assumptions about how somebody else is going to react, because you don't know how they're going to react. I can't see how it's a good idea to start something you aren't willing to finish: if you don't have a viable and politically feasible plan to escalate if plan A fails, better keep your missile in your pants, because once you're in, you're in.

I agree on not arming the rebels, unless of course there is some faction that you really want to see win and that you really think can win, both contentions requiring very realistic assessment and full awareness that you might be wrong. However, just because you don't arm the rebels doesn't mean they won't get arms. They will. People make ways. If they don't get them from you, they'll get them from someone else: no shortage of actors and agendas out there. If they want to fight, they will. If the dictator falls, different factions will fight it out to fill the vacuum. These things are not ours to control, and will happen whether we like it or not.

[JMA]

Oh, you are back.

Enjoy the little rant?

Seriously Steve - as I have told you before - I have little interest in discussing anything of this nature with someone with zero military background.

Ok, so you've fired off your three missiles. The dictator goes underground, his army disperses. They issue a statement telling you to stick your missiles where the sun don't shine, and proceed to do more of whatever it was you objected to in the first place. Your bluff has been called. Now what do you do? Do you escalate, and (assuming you're in the awkward position of leading a democracy) face the wrath of your populace and rest of the political edifice? Do you back down? Or do you just stand there buck naked with your putz shriveling in a cold breeze?

I can't see how it's a good idea to start firing off missiles based on assumptions about how somebody else is going to react, because you don't know how they're going to react. I can't see how it's a good idea to start something you aren't willing to finish: if you don't have a viable and politically feasible plan to escalate if plan A fails, better keep your missile in your pants, because once you're in, you're in.

I agree on not arming the rebels, unless of course there is some faction that you really want to see win and that you really think can win, both contentions requiring very realistic assessment and full awareness that you might be wrong. However, just because you don't arm the rebels doesn't mean they won't get arms. They will. People make ways. If they don't get them from you, they'll get them from someone else: no shortage of actors and agendas out there. If they want to fight, they will. If the dictator falls, different factions will fight it out to fill the vacuum. These things are not ours to control, and will happen whether we like it or not.

[JMA]

Obama seeks $500M to train, equip Syrian rebels

With the conflicts in Syria and Iraq becoming increasingly intertwined against the same Sunni extremist group, President Barack Obama moved on Thursday to ratchet up U.S. efforts to strengthen more moderate Syrian rebels.

First he does nothing (or very little) then he does the wrong thing.

Reminds me of the Churchill quote (which is certainly applicable to this administration):

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."

[TheCurmudgeon]

The theory (my theory) is that you may not actually kill him (the targeted leader) but you will drive him underground and make life as intolerable for him as he has made it for his subjects.

Let me give you a very broad summary of events...

The 3-cruise missile theory.

The first missile is aimed at a strategic military target. Something like the most loyal troops like a Presidential Guard or the like. This makes the point that troops loyal to the 'target' can and will be targeted.

The second missile is aimed that the official residence of the 'target' at 24 hours notice. He won't be there when it arrives but the message will be clear.

The third missle will be reserved for a strike on the target. A reward of $1m (or more) will be promised for information on the location of the 'target' leading to a successful strike on him but probably won't be used.

As with Gadaffi and Saddam who moved a few times a day to avoid being in one place long enough to offer a target the strain becomes unbearable (as these people are used to the world revolving around them in their time and not having to keep moving out of fear for their lives). The result is that even their supporters avoid them as they do not wish to be collateral damage in the event of a strike and they themselves begin to trust no one and eventually offer a nice isolated target for a strike or a visit from a special forces team.

The result... let the target fell the fear and don't end up having many thousands of civilians killed to get at the 'target' when the message will be clearly transmitted to the one who is the cause of all the problems that there is a cruise missile with his name on it.

If the use of quid pro quo cruise missile strikes had been used (in the manner I suggested) in Syria the regime could have/ would have been put under sever pressure without having to arm the rebels (and we know hat a stupid policy that has been).

Again, killing the target, in this case Assad, is no guarantee that the next person in line is better, or that there will even be a orderly transition of power. The result could be total anarchy. At least with Assad in power you have someone to negotiate with.

Seems to me you want to know what you are going to get next before you pull that trigger.

[JMA]

Again, killing the target, in this case Assad, is no guarantee that the next person in line is better, or that there will even be a orderly transition of power.

Yes that is always a consideration when one considers an assassination.

The result could be total anarchy. At least with Assad in power you have someone to negotiate with.

Yea, over the bodies of 160,000 civilians.

I guess you don't understand the concept I propose. No matter.

Seems to me you want to know what you are going to get next before you pull that trigger.

Obviously.

You want to anticipate the consequences, intended and unintended, of all actions before proceeding.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Yea, over the bodies of 160,000 civilians.

I guess you don't understand the concept I propose. No matter.

I think I understand it, I just think it is simplistic.This is from research on killing the head of terrorist organizations as a tactic, but the principal is the same.

In general, the study found that the decapitation strategy
appears to have little effect on the reduction of terrorist activity. The most notable trend from the statistical analysis was that decapitation strikes on religious terrorist groups tended to be followed by sharp increases in fatalities. This could be an important indication that decapitation strikes should be carefully considered on the basis of the type of group targeted. As this strategy is currently viewed to be effective by policy makers and is supported by public opinion, more data should be gathered in order to thoroughly study the efficacy of the tactic.

The British finally gave us these types of targeted killing of IRA members in part because there was never anyone in power long enough to negotiate a final peace. Killings don't change the nature of the grievances, the reason people fight, or the dynamics of the game, it only alters the players.

I doubt that killing Assad, even if accomplished in the early days of the conflict, would have resulted in a lower death toll. It is not a solution that can bring a conflict to an end. There will have to be trials for war crime, reintegration of fighters, and a peace and reconciliation commission to bring closure to the war.

Without a massive commitment of forces from outside Syria, it will end in one of two ways. Assad, or someone like Assad (probably more brutal) wins; or the country is divided with Assad remaining in power in "South Syria" and a food fight over the north. That food fight will be just as bloody.

[TheCurmudgeon]

JMA,

I don't recall seeing these posts, but they are great insights. I think we put blind faith and too much emphasis on surrogates or using the buzz phrase "through, by and with" approach. This approach certainly has application in some cases, but it is not want we should depend upon for our national security. As you correctly point, militarizing a populace to pursue our goals can have long term negative blow back against our national interests. Perhaps removing Qaddafi unilaterally with U.S. or NATO forces without supporting a rebellion would have been a much better option. This is one reason I argued against providing support to rebels in Syria, we would never provide enough to be decisive, and our aid would simply prolong the conflict resulting a war like society that ultimately makes stabilizing the region much, much harder.

Bill, by “removing Qaddafi unilaterally with U.S. or NATO Forces..." you mean declare war on a sovereign nation? As impractical as it may be arming the local population and becoming involved only once there is an alternative government body that you can deal with, it is more appropriate response than unilateral invasion. It also does not create a group of foreign fighters – a situation different from Syria.

Syria is drawing in foreign fighters for ideological reasons, but that does not guarantee that any of these fighters will return to their homelands to wreak havoc. A large number of Americans went off to Spain to fight fascism against the wishes of the U.S. government and they did not return en mass to start killing people. There is no guarantee that they will continue the fight once back home.

I understand JMA’s admonitions, but I think that each situation needs to be considered separately. You also need to know who are in the lines of succession - who is the next Devil you will have to deal with? Also, dictatorial leaders dominate a population. Once that leviathan is removed, all the other sectarian conflicts will rise to the surface. With it unlikely that the population has ever dealt with parliamentary politics each group will seek the greatest advantage for themselves while simultaneously trying to seek vengeance for real or perceived injustice. It is rarely as simple as killing Qaddafi.

[JMA]

Bill, by “removing Qaddafi unilaterally with U.S. or NATO Forces..." you mean declare war on a sovereign nation?

Why the surprise?

You don't remember Operation Just Cause - the US invasion of Panama in 1989 where Noriega was 'lifted'. A 80% public approval in the US for the action.

The US now certainly has the wherewithal to target the leadership of such countries - in other words the cause of the problem - without getting tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians killed through some unimaginative conventional method of removing such criminal leadership.

We can discuss what level of sovereignity a criminal or illegal - non-democratically elected - government can hide behind if you wish.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Why the surprise?

You don't remember Operation Just Cause - the US invasion of Panama in 1989 where Noriega was 'lifted'. A 80% public approval in the US for the action.

The US now certainly has the wherewithal to target the leadership of such countries - in other words the cause of the problem - without getting tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians killed through some unimaginative conventional method of removing such criminal leadership.

We can discuss what level of sovereignity a criminal or illegal - non-democratically elected - government can hide behind if you wish.

JMA, I am not surprised. I was a little surprised to see Bill interested in the idea.

I have no allusions about these things. There is no such thing as International Law; there is only what various actors can get away with. The larger the power, the more you can get away with. We complain about the Crimea but we had much less justification to invade Grenada, although the justification was similar – we needed to go in and protect American students at a university - they needed to protect Russians in the Crimea.

[JMA]

I understand JMA’s admonitions, but I think that each situation needs to be considered separately. You also need to know who are in the lines of succession - who is the next Devil you will have to deal with? Also, dictatorial leaders dominate a population. Once that leviathan is removed, all the other sectarian conflicts will rise to the surface. With it unlikely that the population has ever dealt with parliamentary politics each group will seek the greatest advantage for themselves while simultaneously trying to seek vengeance for real or perceived injustice. It is rarely as simple as killing Qaddafi.

Well are these various situations being 'considered separately' by the recent US administrations? I don't think so. It is clearly apparent that the 'smart guys' in these Administrations are not as smart as they think they are.

Part of any intelligent planning process factors in the Law of Unintended Consequences based on the intel and background of the situation provided by (in the case of the US) I suppose State and the CIA (yea I know those Keystone Cops guys again).

Then we get onto the subject of the wisdom of forcing these diverse groups to remain trapped within the arbitary boundaries - called countries - if you wish.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Well are these various situations being 'considered separately' by the recent US administrations? I don't think so. It is clearly apparent that the 'smart guys' in these Administrations are not as smart as they think they are.

Part of any intelligent planning process factors in the Law of Unintended Consequences based on the intel and background of the situation provided by (in the case of the US) I suppose State and the CIA (yea I know those Keystone Cops guys again).

Then we get onto the subject of the wisdom of forcing these diverse groups to remain trapped within the arbitary boundaries - called countries - if you wish.

I agree with you up to the point of using the Law of Unintended Consequences. That law speaks more to the Rumsfeldian “unknown unknowns.” Bush the Wise knew not to overthrow Saddam because of the chaos it would unleash. Bush the Foolish intentionally disregarded what should have been common knowledge with the foolhardy belief that we could all live together – “Peace in our time.”

The grunts at CIA and maybe even State probably understand these things, but Presidential policy inevitably skews what information actually gets through the layers of appointees to the top.