Syria: the case for action

[jcustis]

Omarali, your pessimism is not unfounded in the least.

The simple fact the the Congress was not recalled (and it has something like 10 days left in recess) speaks volumes. Someone with the job of advising the President to request that they come back, is either failing at that task, or doesn't know a lick about what they are doing and should be fired either way.

Again, there is nothing limited about the Syrian problem and we need to look no further than to a few administrations ago, to be able to gauge how this plays out.

As a mental exercise, what does the Council think Assad's countermove will be after, say, 24 Tomahawk missile strikes against command and control facilities and a few Ba'ath Party buildings?

[ganulv]

As a mental exercise, what does the Council think Assad's countermove will be after, say, 24 Tomahawk missile strikes against command and control facilities and a few Ba'ath Party buildings?

I obviously don’t know whether the intelligence backs this, but maybe Hezbollah gets let off the leash? Iran would factor into that, too, of course.

[omarali50]

I think IF the US attack is symbolic (24 tomahawks) then his response will be equally symbolic and limited.

[jmm99]

The White House announced earlier this week that an intelligence report would be released before any military action is taken. It was released today; and John Kerry gave us a little pep talk - differentiating "us" from "them".

Kerry calls attack against Syrian civilians 'crime against humanity' (NBC News; by F. Brinley Bruton and Erin McClam, August 30, 2013):

Secretary of State John Kerry made a forceful moral case Friday for the United States to punish Syria for using chemical weapons — painting a ghastly portrait of twitching bodies, victims foaming at the mouth and more than 400 children killed.

He called Syrian leader Bashar Assad “a thug and a murderer” and pledged, to a country weary after more than a decade of war in the Middle East, that the American response would not involve troops on the ground and would not be open-ended. ...

Kerry Makes Case That Syria Used Chemical Weapons (NYT; by Michael D. Shear, August 30, 2013):

Secretary of State John Kerry declared on Friday there was “clear” and “compelling” evidence that the government of President Bashar al-Assad used poison gas against its citizens, as the Obama administration released an unclassified intelligence report on the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

“Read for yourselves the evidence from thousands of sources,” Mr. Kerry said in aggressively laying out the administration’s case for strikes on Syria. “This is the indiscriminate, inconceivable horror of chemical weapons. This is what Assad did to his own people.”

Mr. Kerry said that more than 1,400 people were killed in the chemical attack, including more than 400 children.

A four-page intelligence summary released by the White House said the government had concluded with “high confidence” that the Assad government had “carried out a chemical weapons attack” outside Damascus, based on human sources as well as communications intercepts. The suggestion that the opposition might have been responsible “is highly unlikely,” the assessment said.

Mr. Kerry said the administration had “high confidence” in the intelligence, much of which was being released to the public as he spoke. But he vowed that the government had carefully reviewed the evidence to avoid the kind of intelligence failures that preceded the Iraq war.

John Kerry makes forceful case for U.S. military intervention in Syria (WP; by Anthony Faiola, August 30, 2013):

Secretary of State John F. Kerry made a forceful case Friday for U.S. military intervention in Syria, saying that U.S. intelligence has information pinning responsibility for last week’s chemical weapons attack squarely on the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

In a speech at the State Department, Kerry said U.S. intelligence has “high confidence” that the Assad government was responsible for the attack based partly on knowledge of regime officials’ conversations about the attack and the tracking of movements of regime personnel before and after the strike.

Kerry said that for three days before the Aug. 21 attack, the Syrian government’s chemical weapons personnel “were in the area, making preparations” for the strike. He also said that “regime elements were told to prepare for the attack by putting on gas masks” and taking other precautions. And he said U.S. intelligence knows that the rockets containing the poison gas were launched only from “regime-controlled areas.”

The attack killed 1,429 Syrians, including 426 children, Kerry said.

Thus, an explicit recitation of "...the horror, the horror ...", because that is, indeed, the Obama administration's strongest point of argument.

Also, we now seem to have a revitalized French Connection.

Kerry spoke after French President Francois Hollande said Friday that his country is prepared to act in Syria despite Britain’s surprise rejection of military action, potentially making a nation that turned its back on Washington during the war in Iraq the primary U.S. ally in a possible strike against Syrian forces.
...
Hollande’s apparent willingness to take action in Syria stems, analysts say, from a number of variables. France is the former colonial power in Syria. The country, in military missions in Mali and Libya in recent years, has been reasserting its military might.

In addition, because the country sat out the war in Iraq, French politicians are not carrying the same painful baggage as those in Britain, whose troops joined the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq based on false intelligence that dictator Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.

“There is no feeling here that ‘we are at it again’ or that ‘our government is lying to us,’ ” said Dominique Moisi, senior adviser at the French Institute for International Relations in Paris. “We are in a better position to have public opinion favoring intervention in Syria.”

Kerry also noted that France is our oldest ally - vive le ancien regime ! .... Oh, what a difference a decade makes ....

The intelligence report (presumably the "1000s of sources" were redacted to protect sources and methods) is here: Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013 (The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, August 30, 2013); and Syria: Damascus Areas of Influence and Areas Reportedly Affected by 21 August Chemical Attack (1 page map).

- to be cont. -

[jmm99]

How will this play out ? We have some indications - leaving aside attempts to read White House tea leaves.

Jack Goldsmith's political post (a rare bird, since Jack writes mostly legal) from yesterday outlines some issues. I've had respect for Goldsmith since he duelled it out with David Addington (Wiki; read this 2007 NYT piece on Jack, Conscience of a Conservative - which evinced moral courage on his part once he found the right path).

British Bow Out of Syria Intervention, USG Plunging Ahead (by Jack Goldsmith, August 29, 2013):

In a separate story, the NYT reports that “President Obama is prepared to move ahead with a limited military strike on Syria . . . even with a rejection of such action by Britain’s Parliament, an increasingly restive Congress, and lacking an endorsement from the United Nations Security Council.” And, the NYT might have added, without the support of the American people.

The segment below on the two recent polls suggest something of a shift in the American attitudes. That as it may or may not be, I certainly concur in these snips by Goldsmith:

The NYT says that the President “is basing his case for action both on safeguarding international standards against the use of chemical weapons and on the threat to America’s national interests posed by Syria’s use of those weapons.” These rationales are very weak – especially since the President would be violating international law to “safeguard international standards,” since our closest ally Britain withdrew from the fight, since the U.N. failed to authorize force, and since the Arab League does not support intervention.
...
The President is way out on a limb, by himself. Independent of legality, unilateral military intervention in these circumstances is extraordinarily imprudent, and it is hard to fathom that it is being considered by the man who based his case for the presidency in 2008 on his commitment to domestic and international legality, and on opposition to imprudent wars.

The administration seems to think that the costs of going forward in Syria are small because the planned strike will be “limited.” But even assuming that a limited strike does not produce terrible second- and third-order consequences in the region, it would still be self-defeating because (although it is limited) it would be contrary to international and domestic opinion and (because it is limited) it would bring few benefits in terms of punishing Assad or enhancing Obama’s credibility.

Jack addressed "why not congressional approval":

This is very dangerous territory for the President. Forget the Constitution for a moment. Why won’t the President pay the same respect to American democracy that David Cameron paid to British democracy? (I offered answers to this question a few days ago, but the question is much more poignant now that the British Parliament has spoken against intervention.)

Jack's five answers were (adding numbers to them):

1. has a very broad view of his unilateral war powers;

2. this military action is being rushed, and formal congressional approval is not a priority in light of the President’s self-induced credibility crisis and the overwhelming military and diplomatic demands of planning the intervention;

3. the White House doesn’t want to expend (or doesn’t have) the resources that seeking and winning congressional approval would require;

4. it doesn’t want to suffer through the formal national debate;

5. and it fears it might lose the debate (either outright, or with a limitation on presidential power), which would be politically and legally humiliating.

I'd add that the White House has as much as it wants from the key congressional leadership. Here, for example, is the position of Michigan's senior senator, Levin statement on Syria consultations (Thursday, August 29, 2013)

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, issued the following statement today following consultations with the Obama administration on the situation in Syria:

"I have previously called for the United States to work with our friends and allies to increase the military pressure on the Assad regime by providing lethal aid to vetted elements of the Syrian opposition. Tonight, I suggested that we should do so while UN inspectors complete their work and while we seek international support for limited, targeted strikes in response to the Assad regime’s large-scale use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people. I appreciate the administration’s continuing efforts tonight to consult with Congress about the situation in Syria, and its commitment to further consultations with Congress."

Note that "we seek international support" (thus, the effort to bag the UK is probably going to continue); and "consult" and "consultations" do not mean formal approval - even though 80% of Americans want exactly that.

- to be cont. -

[jcustis]

We are definitely seeing the contrast between a first term President and one who has nothing to lose since he does not face re-election. If this were 2010, Things would be moving much slower.

[jmm99]

The WH may see in the two recent polls the light shining at the end of the tunnel. In any event, the WH momentum has not lessened.

US prepared to strike Syria despite rebuke from Britain, White House officials say (NBC News; by F. Brinley Bruton and Erin McClam, August 30, 2013)

White House officials are signaling that President Barack Obama is prepared for the United States to strike Syria — after a rejection from the British Parliament and in the face of deep reservations in Congress.

An NBC News poll released Friday found that an overwhelming majority of Americans, roughly eight in 10, want the president to seek approval from lawmakers before any attack on the Syrian government for its apparent use of chemical weapons.

The poll found that support among Americans is higher for a limited military strike, such as cruise missiles fired from Navy warships in the Mediterranean Sea. But half of Americans are opposed to any military attack on Syria.

What the WH is looking at is not the 80% wanting congressional approval, but the 50% who support limited strikes. IMO: President Obama is looking at the same thing; and if ill-advice is occuring, it is presidentially self-made. In addition, the polls over the last several months have shown an increase in the percentage approving limited strikes.

Syria Poll Finds Little American Support For Air Strikes (by Emily Swanson, Posted: 08/28/2013):

Americans largely oppose any U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war, according to a new HuffPost / YouGov poll, with only a quarter saying they support air strikes there.

The new poll, conducted after U.S. officials claimed Syria's government killed thousands of civilians with chemical weapons, shows 25 percent of Americans now support air strikes to aid rebels in Syria, while 41 percent said they are opposed. Another 34 percent said that they're not sure.

Support for air strikes has risen since two previous HuffPost / YouGov polls. A poll conducted in April found found that 16 percent of Americans supported air strikes. A poll in June found 19 percent supported air strikes.
...
The 59 percent of respondents who said they believe Syria has used chemical weapons against rebels there were about evenly divided on whether the U.S. should conduct air strikes, with 37 percent in support and 38 percent opposed. Twenty-six percent were unsure. The June HuffPost / YouGov poll found that a plurality of those who believed Syria has used chemical weapons were opposed to air strikes, 49 percent to 29 percent.

Respondents to the latest poll were divided over whether the U.S. has a responsibility to prevent the Syrian government from using chemical weapons. Thirty-one percent said it does, 38 percent said it does not, and 31 percent said that they were unsure.
...
Two other options for intervening in the Syrian conflict were even less popular than air strikes. Sending U.S, troops to aid the rebels was opposed by a 65 percent to 11 percent majority of respondents, while providing weapons to rebels was opposed by a 49 percent to 13 percent plurality.

The WH has looked at the trend line - increasing in support for limited strikes; as well as the large undecided percentage and the increased support for strikes among those who believed that the strikes were Assad ordered.

The NBC poll simply verifies that view, NBC poll: Nearly 80 percent want congressional approval on Syria (NBC News; by Mark Murray, Senior Political Editor, August 30, 2013):

Nearly 80 percent of Americans believe President Barack Obama should receive congressional approval before using force in Syria, but the nation is divided over the scope of any potential strike, a new NBC News poll shows.

Fifty percent of Americans believe the United States should not intervene in the wake of suspected chemical weapons attacks by Syrian President Bashar Assad, according to the poll. But the public is more supportive of military action when it's limited to launching cruise missiles from U.S. naval ships - 50 percent favor that kind of intervention, while 44 percent oppose it.

Thus, the NBC poll gives the White House a "mandate" to go ahead with limited strikes. A long holiday weekend might just be the best political time to do that.

Finally, in answer to Jon's question about what Assad will do, I can only say what I'd think I'd do in an existential situation for me and my supporters. I'd continue with my plans and kill as many enemies as possible. I'd be in an Iwo Jima situation, where the Japanese general did the best he could under the circumstances. Surrender was not an option.

Regards

Mike

[omarali50]

I cut and paste (and edited) a few comments to make this post:

http://www.brownpundits.com/2013/08/...tacking-syria/

[jcustis]

I think IF the US attack is symbolic (24 tomahawks) then his response will be equally symbolic and limited.

I agree it would be limited, in part because his regime is already embattled and wobbling. He can't do anything like attack Israel because he knows full well Israel will go high order in a heartbeat and just start surging airstrikes.

I believe we can expect an immediate information operations offensive, with social media used as a vehicle to push pictures and video of the strikes as "errant" in nature, with even a few casualties (even if They are actually soldiers) paraded out as innocent victims.

Hezbollah in Lebabon or elsewhere could stir things up, but we don't have major assets there which are at risk. Hezbollah is not getting into a Sunni country, like Bahrain, to threaten US military assets, so any Hezbollah impact is minimalized. I don't believe they could plan and resource a terrorist attack for at least 30 days.

I worry about how the Iranian angle will play out though. It wouldn't surprise me if a limited attack spawns a limited assymetric attack (missile strike from Iran across the Gulf) that presumes the US won't go "all in". Something like that would make the Syrian situation exponentially more sticky. A kinetic situation in Syria, with Iran, and the enduring fight in AFG, will make it difficult for the US to orient on the problem set.

That buys Assad time, and allows him to progress one more day towards stalemate.

[ganulv]

Hezbollah in Lebabon or elsewhere could stir things up, but we don't have major assets there which are at risk. Hezbollah is not getting into a Sunni country, like Bahrain, to threaten US military assets, so any Hezbollah impact is minimalized. I don't believe they could plan and resource a terrorist attack for at least 30 days.

I worry about how the Iranian angle will play out though. It wouldn't surprise me if a limited attack spawns a limited assymetric attack (missile strike from Iran across the Gulf) that presumes the US won't go "all in". Something like that would make the Syrian situation exponentially more sticky. A kinetic situation in Syria, with Iran, and the enduring fight in AFG, will make it difficult for the US to orient on the problem set.

That buys Assad time, and allows him to progress one more day towards stalemate.

Just thinking out loud, and I don’t see how it would aid Assad directly, but would Iran facilitate something targeting U.S. interests in Afghanistan?

[JMA]

Why would 24 be needed?

I think IF the US attack is symbolic (24 tomahawks) then his response will be equally symbolic and limited.

[omarali50]

24 tomahawks was the number mentioned by Jcustis in his comment (as an example of what a US strike could be).
I am sure it will be more than 24 in reality.
But really 24 or 48 or 96, it hardly matters. Supposedly the whole point is to "make a point". Can it be made with 13?
There doesnt seem to be any objective beyond covering Obama's A for the "red-line" remark.
Unless, of course, people like me have no idea what grand strategic move is being made here (entirely possible, I must admit).

[omarali50]

Obama, after intending to launch an illegal act of war, now wants Congress to vote. Good. Good. Intentions and how he got here may be embarrassing but he got there. Maybe in a few days he will figure out what his overall strategy really IS. That will be good for America, if not for everyone.
At least this punctures some of the conspiracy theories about what grand evil plan America was working on here (false flag and all the other BS that was crowding my facebook page..I am Pakistani, remember)...there IS no grand plan.

[jmm99]

Obama Will Seek Congressional Vote on Syria (By PETER BAKER and ANNE BARNARD, August 31, 2013):

WASHINGTON — President Obama stunned the capital and paused his march to war on Saturday by asking Congress to give him authorization before he launches a limited military strike against the Syrian government in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack.

In a hastily organized appearance in the Rose Garden, Mr. Obama said he had decided that the United States should use force but would wait for a vote from lawmakers, who are not due to return to town for more than a week. Mr. Obama said he believed he has authority to act on his own but did not say whether he would if Congress rejects his plan. ...

President's video statement at USAToday.

Regards

Mike

[Dayuhan]

But really 24 or 48 or 96, it hardly matters. Supposedly the whole point is to "make a point".

I do sort of wonder what the point is, and to whom it's being made. Would a strike be intended to show Assad that you can't get away with using chemical weapons (if indeed he did), or would it be intended to show everybody else that the US administration stands by its "red lines"?

Asking approval from Congress, of course, is an excellent way for Obama to avoid acting on the "red line" comment while passing the "wimp" accusations on to someone else.

In any event, whatever the number of missiles used, I suspect that Assad's forces would simply disperse their key assets and protect them to the extent possible, soak it up, and carry on. They are not going to give up because somebody sent them some cruise missiles.

[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?

[JMA]

I'll be interested to see if any lessons were learned from Libya when it comes to targeting.

Also one would have thought that national leaders would have the intelligence not to box themselves into a corner by drawing 'red lines'.

And for the Brits... how is it possible that Cameron wanted to make a move before absolute proof of the Syrian regime having used chemical weapons was presented?

Where are all the smart guys? Obviously don't go into politics.

24 tomahawks was the number mentioned by Jcustis in his comment (as an example of what a US strike could be).
I am sure it will be more than 24 in reality.
But really 24 or 48 or 96, it hardly matters. Supposedly the whole point is to "make a point". Can it be made with 13?
There doesnt seem to be any objective beyond covering Obama's A for the "red-line" remark.
Unless, of course, people like me have no idea what grand strategic move is being made here (entirely possible, I must admit).

[davidbfpo]

JMA refers to lessons learned. It has taken awhile for the question has Assad learnt from Saddam to be posed:http://www.al-bab.com/blog/2013/sept....f5XeZHfK.uxfs