Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Syria Intervention

The exchanges in the Senate today draw attention the debate surrounding the possibility of open western military intervention in Syria. As I have previously argued, such an operation would be risky and complex AND would draw assets away from other critical national security objectives - such as in Afghanistan. 

The following quote from the above linked article is particularly note worthy:

'But Dempsey [Chairman of Joint Chiefs] said that the attacks necessary to destroy Syrian air defenses would be long, complicated and risky because Syria has air defenses that five times more sophisticated than those attacked by the NATO-led coalition in Libya last year.
“It would take an extended period of time and a great number of aircraft,” Dempsey said. Because most Syrian air defenses are located in the heavily-populated eastern part of the country, where most of the violence against opposition strongholds is taking place, civilian casualties and other collateral damage would be high, he said.'
If Europe wants to engage in foreign military interventions then European states must spend more on their militaries. Especially with regards to building their power projection capabilities. It is intolerable to me that the United States receives European scorn for our military spending most of the time and then.. during situations like that currently ongoing in Syria, receives scorn for being unwilling to risk our pilots, our assets and our money in an operational environment that is far closer to Europe. In Libya, European states took most of the credit and yet, most of the ammunition, logistics and intelligence targeting material was American produce. European responsibilities for international security cannot begin and end with screams for intervention and token deployments of force. These responsibilities and commitments must be real and shared.

No comments:

Post a Comment