Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[Bill Moore]

Bill:

I said I liked the plan but it did have some weaknesses, glaring ones. Those weaknesses I mentioned are some of the same ones you cited.

As far as the opposition goes , well...they're the opposition and will oppose it.

The plan is not solely military. There are a number of non-military aspects to it and none of the individual aspects of the plan or the plan as a whole may work. It's a plan, not a guarantee. But it seems like a good starting point if it is decided that we should try to do more than stand and watch.

Carl,

First I'm not opposed to acting if our leadership believes it is in our national interests to do so. Those interests may not be directly related to our security, but a larger strategic interest of sustaining U.S. leadership.

My concern is that most of what the author proposed with the possible exception of A has been in the works for over a year.

It also seems many of his aspirations are based on assessing the situation, the world in general, as we desire it to be, rather than the way it really is.

Lets just hope we learned a lot from our mistakes with Iraq.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...97K0EL20130825

Reuters) - A U.S. military response to alleged chemical weapons attacks in Syria appeared more likely on Sunday after Washington dismissed the Syrian government's offer to allow U.N. inspection of the sites as "too late to be credible."

[Dayuhan]

First I'm not opposed to acting if our leadership believes it is in our national interests to do so. Those interests may not be directly related to our security, but a larger strategic interest of sustaining U.S. leadership.

I'd be very nervous about arguments for intervention based solely or largely on a hypothetical need to exercise leadership. If "leadership" means expending blood and treasure and wading into situations without clear, practical, and achievable goals, to hell with it. If "leadership" means appointing ourselves as global police force, to hell with it. Draining our resources, strength and money to no clear and necessary purpose is a far greater risk than losing status as global leader... a status which has not gained a great deal for us in the past.

In the cited plan, this:

B) Political process aimed at stabilizing conflict and protecting all communities’ interests;

seems a major sticking point. It is simply not a practical goal. We have no means to achieve it and it seems aspirational at best, though I'd be more inclined to use the word "fantasy". Whether Assad wins or loses, Syria will be an unholy mess for a long time to come. The question for us is whether it should be our mess.

[jmm99]

as to the President, we really will have to wait and see. From Bill Moore's cited Reuters article:

Obama has been reluctant to intervene in Syria's 2-1/2-year-old conflict and U.S. officials stressed that he has yet to make a decision on how to respond. A senior senator, Republican Bob Corker, said on Sunday he believed Obama would ask Congress for authorization to use force when lawmakers return from summer recess next month.

To be clear upfront, I'd vote against the "2013 Syrian AUMF".

However, I haven't a clue about what Congress would do if given that AUMF. But, I can't think of an "AUMF" that was voted down when initially requested by a President. Yes, the Gulf of Tonkin AUMF was revoked, but years after the event.

So, my feeling that missiles will fly is still there. The unanswered question is whether we'll see unilateral Presidential action during the Congressional recess ? Or, joint Presidential-Congressional action after Congress returns ? In either case, alia jacta est.

The issues become (and the political temptations will tease), after tossing some missiles and air strikes at Assad: (1) do you remove the "bad guys" from power by serious and costly warfare ?; and, if so, (2) do you then engage in equally serious and even more costly state building to assure that the "good guys" hold onto power ?

And, of course, who in hell (Syria) are the good guys and who are the bad guys ?

So, I believe, it's heading - Lessons Learned ? I doubt it.

Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

This morning's lede article on Lawfare by Jack Goldsmith, General Dempsey on Syria Intervention:

As at least some form of minimal military intervention in Syria now looks likely, it is worth reading carefully the letter that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey sent last Monday to Representative Eliot Engel. The letter includes this passage:

[T]here are certainly actions short of tipping the balance of the conflict [in Syria] that could impose a cost on them for unacceptable behavior. We can destroy the Syrian Air Force. The loss of Assad’s Air Force would negate his ability to attack opposition forces from the air, but it would also escalate and potentially further commit the United States to the conflict. Stated another way, it would not be militarily decisive, but it would commit us decisively to the conflict. In a variety of ways, the use of US military force can change the military balance, but it cannot resolve the underlying and historic ethnic, religious, and tribal issues that are fueling this conflict.

Syria today is not about choosing between two sides but rather about choosing one among many sides. It is my belief that the side we choose must be ready to promote their interests and ours when the balance shifts in their favor. Today, they are not. The crisis in Syria is tragic and complex. It is a deeply rooted, long-term conflict among multiple factions, and violent struggles for power will continue after Assad’s rule ends. We should evaluate the effectiveness of limited military options in this context.

From two days ago, we have Bill Moore, A voice of reason. So, HT to Bill; and SWC: getting there firstest with the mostest.

-------------------------------------
One article and two videos from Fox - just a quick review of the weekend's events.

As Obama appears closer to Syria response, Congress now urges caution:

U.S. confirmation took more than four months after rebels similarly reported chemical attacks in February, though in this instance a U.N. chemical weapons team is already on the ground in Syria. Assad's government, then as now, has denied the claims as baseless.

I don't see the President waiting for 4 months, unless he decides that no military action should be taken. That would be OK with me, but not likely to be the case.

Is military action inevitable in Syria? (5 min; Homeland Security Committee Chair Rep. McCaul).

Time for the US to intervene in Syria? (13 min.; Sen. Bob Corker and Rep. Eliot Engel).

Regards

Mike

PS: Added for the enjoyment of Carl and all other "the USG is full of hot air" proponents: Judge Jeanine: US gov’t full of nothing but hot air?

[omarali50]

I am an amateur observer and dont even follow the ME too closely, but it does look like every sane person has the same questions about "what next"; what is the overall strategic objective or plan? Its hard to believe that even an amateur band of leaders would seriously go in just to "exercise leadership". So one assumes they must have some notion of what they want to achieve IN SYRIA beyond winning brownie points (a highly doubtful proposition anyway) in some popularity contest in the American media.
My feeling (and i freely admit that this is not based on direct knowledge) is that American officialdom, the people who would actually do the work in any war, are just not up to the task of being successful imperialists OR worldcops and its better if they dont even try. It didnt work in Afghanistan (where it COULD have with the US holding SO MANY cards, all Dalrymple-type BS about "the graveyard of empires notwithstanding) or in Iraq, why would it work in Syria?
The chairman JCS is right on the money and I am amazed that all this may come to pass in spite of such sage advice.
One can imagine that in the inner circles of whatever is our ruling class, there are such clever plans that we mere mortals should just shut up and let the adults work, but the evidence of the recent past is not reassuring.
But hey, one can always hope.
I could not resist adding: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdNsltQXTVU

[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

[Tukhachevskii]

...I, for one, do not understand, why the Syrian government, which has been lobbying for UN inspectors, would then use chemical weapons. I also do not understand how the possible use of said weapons is AUTOMATICALLY Assad's regime's fault. How the hell has that narrative come about let alone been accepted. Apparently, there are also WMD in Iraq. This is all just complete madness. The Americans came up with a post Cold-War strategic narraitve that lumped three areas of strategic concern (to them) together into a coherent strategic narrative that Colin Powell could the offer up to his masters. The Americans have become so blinkered by that narrative (WMD+Rouge states+terroism) that they can't see a course of action which would prevent the forces of global terrorism from gaining a foothold in Syria; back Assad. Now that narrative, whose premises where never logically nor for that matter never coherently linked, is constrining the avaliable options. You know what, this is beginning to sound like a rant. F' it.

T out.

"The evidence so far for the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian army is second-hand and comes from a biased source"

[jmm99]

NBC News.

Military strikes on Syria 'as early as Thursday,' US officials say.

Video (10 min.) - NBC News reports that a military strike against Syria could come as early as Thursday. NBC's Jim Miklaszewski, Politico's Rebecca Sinderbrand, The Washington Post's Ed O'Keefe, and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., discuss.

Hard copy - By Jim Miklaszewski, Catherine Chomiak and Erin McClam, NBC News

The United States could hit Syria with three days of missile strikes, perhaps beginning Thursday, in an attack meant more to send a message to the Syrian regime than to cripple its military, senior U.S. officials told NBC News.

The disclosure added to a growing drumbeat around the world for military action against Syria, believed to have used chemical weapons in recent days against scores of civilians and rebels who have been fighting the government for two years.

In three days of strikes, the Pentagon could assess the effectiveness of the first wave and target what was missed in further rounds, the officials said.

U.S. military options in Syria: A briefing.

Video (2 min.) - NBC's Richard Engel reports from the Turkish border that Syrians believe that if the U.S. does not respond with military force to what they believe are chemical attacks against citizens, it will only encourage Bashar al-Assad to strike again.

Hard copy - By Jim Miklaszewski, Courtney Kube and Erin McClam, NBC News

The crisis in Syria deepened Monday as U.N. weapons inspectors, allowed to access the area where an alleged chemical attack occurred last week, were fired on by snipers. As the situation deteriorates, military intervention becomes less of an “if” and more of a “when” — and that task would probably fall to the United States.

Regards

Mike

[graphei]

I was reading earlier today on the AP newswire a Syrian Kurd stated it wouldn't make sense for Assad to use a chem weapon that close to his stronghold. However, it would make perfect sense for rebels to use it on some civilians and point the finger at Assad. We've been saying for months chemical weapons represented a "red line" and hinted force would be used. He certainly made an interesting point. Ultimately, there is no way of knowing who set off that weapon. None. Without that information, I doubt we won't see more out of the UN than a strongly condemnation. I'm sure both Assad and the rebels will quiver in abject terror when they read it.

If Muslim nations take the lead, it may devolve into a sectarian war. Iran is focused on Western interference at the moment, so other Muslims taking the lead will throw a wrench in that. If Turkey and Saudi Arabia take the lead, I would expect to see the rhetoric change- most likely stop- and Syrian Shi'ite militias with new toys and training. It's not like they don't have decades of experience supporting proxies. I don't think boots-on-the-ground is an option for two reasons:
1. It would be political suicide at home.
2. Getting there is mighty tough with Iraq and Turkey in the way.

Extremists will say whatever Muslim country comes to help the other side is a Puppet of the West, so that's about par for the course.