James Joyner:
Having backed himself into a corner by declaring a “red line” that has now been crossed, President Obama is by all appearances ramping up for military action in Syria. As best we can tell from the not inconsiderable leaks coming from Washington and elsewhere, the planned strikes would use aerial assets, last only a short period, and decidedly not be aimed at achieving our declared strategic goal.
The president has repeatedly articulated, going back to August 2011, that there is but one acceptable end state: “Assad must go.” Dean of the University of Denver’s Josef Korbel School of International Studies and former ambassador Christopher Hill may well be right that this declaration “was not carefully arrived at” and has “boxed us in,” it nonetheless remains the administration’s policy.
Yet, the White House has been emphatic that the action contemplated here is not aimed at achieving that strategic objective. Press secretary Jay Carney declared Tuesday that, “It is not our policy to respond to this transgression with regime change” and that “there is no military solution available here, that the way to bring about a better future in Syria is through negotiation and a political resolution.”
So, what then?
Carney declared “there must be a response” to the chemical attacks and other “administration officials” have said that the strikes would “send a message.” Any message sent by launching military strikes explicitly not designed to achieve one’s stated strategic goal would be cryptic, and should probably be accompanied by a decoder ring.
An editorial in the German business daily Handelsblatt, helpfully translated by Der Spiegel, puts the case brilliantly:
Humanitarian wars are also wars. Those who jump into them for moral reasons should also want to win them. Cruise missiles fired from destroyers can send a message and demonstrate conviction, but they cannot decide the outcome of a war. Neither can a “we’ll see” bombardment. There has to be a strategic motivation behind the moral one, and it demands perseverance.
To paraphrase military theorist Carl von Clausewitz, humanitarian wars have their own grammar but not their own logic. That is, they’re fought to achieve political objectives and judged on whether they have been achieved. Regardless of what modifier accompanies it, wars are fought, in the words of the British military theorist Basil Liddell Hart, to “obtain a better state of the peace.”
While Secretary of State Kerry’s August 26 speech setting the stage for US response was eloquent and emotionally satisfying, its fundamental argument makes no strategic sense. Who could argue against the idea that “The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity”? As Fred Hof, President Obama’s former special advisor for transition in Syria and my colleague at the Atlantic Council, rightly notes, “Such slaughter is, in fact, morally obscene and criminal irrespective of the weaponry employed.”
Chemical weapons account for less than one percent of the more than 100,000 killed in this conflict. Yet, while I’m sympathetic to international relations expert John Mueller’s argument that chemical weapons are not inherently more horrible than many modern conventional weapons, their “development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer or use” are technically prohibited as a matter of international law. While Syria is one of seven states who have not signed and ratified the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, they acceded to the 1925 Geneva Protocol in 1968.
But enforcement of these agreements is the province of the UN Security Council, not the executive branch of the U.S. government. And, rather inconveniently, Kerry’s speech was delivered on the same day that Foreign Policy reported that the U.S. government aided and abetted Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons against Iran in 1988.
If the goal is to send the message that using chemical weapons is unacceptable, as security specialist Charli Carpenter notes in Foreign Affairs, it would be unfortunate to use “Tomahawk missiles, which are capable of carrying cluster munitions and which have been decried on humanitarian grounds by numerous governments and civil society groups.” Additionally, “the planned strikes would likely involve the use of explosives in populated areas, which is in violation of emerging international concerns about such behavior.” If, on the other hand, the primary goal is protection of the civilian population, the Responsibility to Protect doctrine:
We don’t know what the plan is.
If the plan involved the quick elimination of Syrian chemical weapons stockpiles, manufacturing facilities, and delivery systems, and if there were a reasonably high level of expectation that this could actually be accomplished with the tools at our disposal, the plan could make perfect strategic sense. Regardless of who prevails in the Syrian civil war, it would be far better for the U.S. and its allies if chemical weapons and delivery systems were no longer part of the equation.
I don’t like risky gambles, but I’m not sure what constitutes the biggest risk. The entire calculation is probably turning on that question.
Got this one from zerohedge…..worth a read.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-30/released-us-report-proving-assads-use-chemical-weapons-based-youtube-clips-full-repo
I’d prefer Obama go find a reset button. The one we used with Russia doesn’t seem to be in use at the moment.
Then he should spend the evening polishing his Nobel PEACE prize.
I have no clue what means we might presently have to deal with chemical weapons or how effective they might be. Here’s a related article. Exotic weapons aim to destroy chemical weapons
As I listened to Secretary of State Lurch today, assuring the nation that we (he) knew for certainty that Assad had used chemical weapons on the Syrian people, I was reminded of a number of things. First, when did John Kerry, Jane Fonda’s anti-war buddy, turn hawkish? Secondly, I remember all the other foreign policies of Barack Obama, including his backing of the Honduran Chavez wannabe that was kicked out by the Honduran people with the support of the Honduran Supreme Court; his actions in Egypt which has turned into a fiasco, and his signature Middle Eastern policy, Libya.
But was it Assad that used chemical weapons? And if chemical weapons were used, where are all the photos of dead animals like dogs, cats, goats? The Administration is basing its opinion on YouTube videos? That’s comforting.
And what about those Syrian “chemical” weapons that we seem to have lost track of, admitted to just 3 1/2 months ago? It seems the U.S. did not only not know where those weapons were, but who had them:
There is a lot of blathering about how the opposition forces in Syria doesn’t have the capacity to use chemical weapons. Why not? If we have been gun running to Syria, are the people in this Administration so brain dead that they don’t acknowledge that Iran can, and probably has been, doing the same thing?
Thousands are being slaughtered in Egypt, mostly Christians, yet Obama says it is not our place to get involved. Yet, here he is beating the war drums, threatening to “go it alone” over Syria. Where are all the Democrats who demanded that not only George Bush go to Congress to plead his case against Iraq, but also plead that case before the U.N. (which Bush did)?
@retire05, #4:
Iran isn’t supporting the anti-Assad opposition. Why would they supply chemical weapons to them?
You’re suggesting that we should? “Mostly Christians” is b.s. Many more Muslims have been killed in the violence in Egypt than Christians. People who get killed are just as dead, whatever their religion happens to be.
The issue in Syria isn’t the current chemical weapon body count. It’s the fact that WMDs are present in the middle of a very unstable situation, that someone has actually been using them, and an entirely realisitic concern about what could happen.
Some people seem to have suddenly turned off their imaginations, apparently to avoid considering possibilities that get in the way of their primary concern with domestic politics.
@Greg:
Greggie, slow down. Put your thinking cap on when you read what I write. Where did I say that Iran would be supplying “chemical” weapons to the opposition? How do you think chemical weapons are delivered?
As to other weapons, Iran will supply those weapons to jihadists, no matter what side they are on. Or do you think that Iran is not sympathetic to Al Qaeda? And on what day did you have the epiphany that Iran tells the truth about its Middle East designs?
@Greg:
What percentage of the Egyptian population is Muslim, compared to the Copts, Greggie? So, tell us, how many Muslims, and how many Coptic Christians, have been killed in Egypt? That way we can compare the number and apply it to the actual population percentages? Oh, wait, you don’t have the answer, do you? As usual.
Are you saying that you now support our actions in Iraq due to its history of ACTUAL chemical weapons use?
It’s 2013, not 2003. The issue is Syria, not Iraq.
@Greg: Typical Lib Dimocrat argument. “get rid of the guns’, “guns commit crimes, people don’t. “
So Greg, you think it’s the stockpiles of chemical weapons that killed those people. I’m gonna say, I think it was the people that ordered the use of the chemicals that caused the deaths.
But, who did it? No one seems to know. I think it was the people out there in Hollywood that made the video that are responsible. No wait, that was the other deal that got the Ambassador killed, wasn’t it? But that was ony an American, hey, this is al queda people over in Syria that got killed, we need to get revenge on those chemical weapons. Take it out an neutralize it, that’ll teach it..
Love that Dimocrat logic….
@Greg:
Oh, I see. You have no answers so you made some idiotic comment about what year it is.
How is this push to bomb the sh!t out of Syria any different than Iraq, Greggie? We knew Saddam had used chemical weapons, more than once. We knew that he had thrown the UN inspectors out, more than once. We knew he was killing his own people, in great numbers. So how is Syria the good war when I promise that you did not support Iraq.
Are you ready to accept that Assad killed his own people based on YouTube videos? Oh, that’s right; Democrats love to blame hostile actions against Americans on YouTube videos, don’t they? Secretary of State Lurch tells us today that done surveillance tells us that Assad is the guilty one, yet Panetta admitted that he didn’t know where the missing Syrian chemical weapons were because (tah-dah) drone surveillance was not complete.
Where’s your CodePinko buddies on this one, Greggie?
@Redteam, #9:
I think that’s fairly sound logic, when it comes to stockpiles of chemical weapons in the hands of people who are prepared to use them on other people that they don’t like.
Those who feel compelled to be on the opposite side of any issue from Barack Obama, regardless of the particulars involved, have ceased to think clearly. For them, everything revolves around their war against Obama. Thus we’ve come to the point where those who were easily able to justify a massive land invasion 10 years ago because WMDs were suspected to exist are now ready to ignore the fact that an unstable Islamic dictatorship on the border with Israel not only has them in large quantity, but has recently used them, and has recently made threats toward Israel if anyone dares to interfere. They’re also ready to ignore the fact that those same weapons could easily fall into the hands of Islamic extremist factions.
The nice thing about democratic logic on this point is that there at least seems to be some logic. Opinions on the democratic side differ as to what should be done—I’m really not sure myself—but people are at least thinking clearly about it.
@retire05, #10:
Your only apparent intention is to shut down any discussion that you don’t like.
@Greg:
If anything should be discussed is how you refuse to answer questions. You just throw crap and then think no one sees the stains on your hands.
Now, how many Muslims compared to Christian Copts have been killed in Egypt?
Your question has absolutely no bearing on the topic. If you want an answer, I suggest you look it up.
@Greg:
Why don’t you just admit you don’t know the answer? Or is just a small bit of honesty too much to ask of you?
@Greg: #11
Where are you getting that information from? Do you have inside knowledge? So far no one has been able to say with certainty ‘who’ used the weapons. I strongly suspect it was al qaeda, since they had access to them and we know it was a ‘low grade chemical weapon’, not a military one. Being on the opposite side from Obama is not unusual since ‘no one but you’ seems to be on his side.
@Greg: The question certainly is relevant, Greg. I suspect the ‘answer’ doesn’t fit your claims, therefore you want to divert attention.
@Redteam, #16:
I don’t know where people are getting this stuff. From the bat cave of Dr. Jerome Corsi, perhaps?
A nerve agent that quickly kills over 1,400 people when targeted on an urban area doesn’t meet any reasonable definition of a “low grade chemical weapon.”
@Greg:
Wow, it has added to the death toll a lot since it happened. from 355 up to over 1400 now, but it took several days, it wasn’t ‘quickly’. and, no dead dogs or cats tho, just people. very selective chemicals.
Just curious, what did Corsi say about it? I’m sure he was probably correct.
As I stated, the UN inspectors haven’t released any facts or reports yet, you just jumping to conclusions?
Who would have the vested interests in chemical weapons being used there? If Assad used them, he wouldn’t expect the US to like it. If al qaeda used them and made it ‘appear’ that Assad used them, who’s interest would that be? That would help Obama the most, right? That way he would be supporting the more evil group of the two. Yep, Greg, it’s obvious you left your thinking cap at home. Uh, what’s the bat cave putting out? I don’t read them. That one of your sources?
@Greg:
By that logic we should already have attacked Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities.
@Greg:
No, the issue is you changing to supporting war when their is no threat to the US but simply because a dem is in the oval office. Iraq and Afghganistan were threats to the US, but you opposed force then when we had legitimate reasons for war, and had support of Congress and the UN. Now you support war without congressional or UN support on the sole basis of a dem being president. What possible justification is there for the US to jump into a civil war in Syria?
@Pete, #21:
As of 2002, Iraq represented little or no threat to the United States or to American forces. The belief that it did was promoted as a means of justifying an unnecessary invasion and occupation. Afghanistan, on the other hand, made perfect sense. That’s where the terrorists who had attacked the American homeland were based. I opposed the invasion of Iraq but supported the war in Afghanistan. Iraq only served to divide our attention.
Anyone who doesn’t understand how the continuing presence of Assad’s chemical weapons pose a serious and growing threat to the United States and its allies—in particular, to Israel—has got to be at least partially out of touch with reality. It’s all about that threat and how best to deal with it.
John McCain understands this. That makes him an unlikely and unwilling ally of Obama on this particular issue at the moment. I don’t much appreciate McCain’s politically motivated allegations that Obama is chiefly to blame for 2 years of inaction in connection with Syria, however. Obama has been severely battered by republicans for having provided support to the Libyan rebels. The battering has taken place over those same 2 years. Criticism of Obama’s actions in Libya became central to the republicans’ efforts to politically destroy him. McCain would now have him support the Syrian rebels in pretty much the same fashion.
In spite of that Obama did in fact made a public commitment to provide arms to moderate Syrian factions. No help has been provided, however. Why? Because House and Senate Intelligence Committees have blocked the funding necessary to do so.
Obama now wants a vote on Syrian intervention. I don’t blame him. That’s probably the only way to make his critics honestly address the real issue and take personal responsibility for their actions.
As I said, you can be thick as a brick sometimes, Greg. I see you still refuse to comment on the 23 “whereas” that even your own party signed on to in large numbers. This makes you the odd man out, even with in your own party, in your naive perceptions about Saddam’s Iraq.
@MataHarley, #23:
I just commented on that. I think Public Law 107-243 pretty much documents the incorrect assumptions and faulty reasoning that led Congress to authorize an unnecessary war. “Thick as a brick” is a matter of perspective.
@Greg: #22
I don’t agree. How is the presence of chemical weapons in Syria a threat to the US? Specifically? Even if every person in Syria, on both sides were wiped out by chemical weapons, it shouldn’t become a threat to the US. If Syria were to use or threaten to use chemical weapons in Israel, then that would involve the US.
@Redteam, #25:
Use your imagination. You don’t have to imagine the weapons, because they’ve been demonstrated to presently exist.
What would happen if Syria launched chemical warheads at nuclear-armed Israel? How would anyone hit the brakes on the sequence of events that could almost instantly follow? What would happen if chemical or biological weapons fell into the hands of terrorists? They could turn up and be deployed anywhere. I have a far more difficult time understanding how anyone could think chemical weapons stockpiles in the possession of an unstable regime wouldn’t be a threat.
Then there’s the proliferation issue. If Assad has repeatedly uses chemical weapons against civilians and there are no negative consequences, how credible is the prohibition in the eyes of any 3rd world leader? How long until they turn up on the global weapons black market? That wouldn’t quickly evolve into a serious security threat to U.S. interests anywhere in the world?
I’m not advocating any specific response. I don’t really know the particulars, or our military capabilities for dealing with them. I’m just totally astonished that people are advocating no response at all, because Syria’s unconventional weapons simply aren’t a problem.
@Greg:
Then that would be an attack against a nation that the US has a treaty with and we should then act to defend them. We have no such treaty with Syria and it is not in our interest even if they kill off all the Syrians.
And of course that’s why you were a big war hawk FOR the war against Iraq.
Repeatedly? Why didn’t we bomb him the first time? why now? It’s a UN issue, not a US issue.
As I said, I’m sure that’s the same position you took when GWB wanted to hit Iraq. No response at all is the correct one for the US, it’s a UN issue.