Syria - 4 myths infecting the US intervention debate

1) US isolationism will insulate US interests

Watching the hearings in Congress and reading public commentary, you’d probably believe that non-intervention offers the surest protection for US interests. I take the opposite standpoint. Even under the sharpest definition of ‘national interests’, America’s alienation from this conflict is exceptionally risky.

To be clear, if the US fails to take action against Assad, we'll dramatically improve the likelihood of his victory. Devoid of deterrent imposed restraint and imbued by what he would regard as the proven fallacy of American power, Assad would be unleashed towards even greater violence. In a flowing sense, US inaction would also inspire Iran towards a more aggressive political posture. Alongside allies like the Lebanese Hizballah, they’d feel liberated to vigorously pursue their regional political objectives. The Iranian theocrats are astute actors – they cultivate policy with great consideration towards absent/present American resolve. Regardless, whether concerning the further destabilization of Lebanese democracy, increased hostility towards Israel and/or a catalyzed balance of power crisis between Iran and the Sunni Arab kingdoms, a self-inflicted American castration (aka isolationism) would be a grave mistake.

2) The Syrian civil war is limited to Syria

In their questioning of Secretary of State Kerry, many in Congress have expressed the fear that US intervention will spark a regional conflagration. These officials need to read the news... the region is already on fire. In Lebanon, Hezbollah is under attack, as are Sunnis who oppose that organization. At the Lebanese-Israeli border, signs of looming conflict are growing ever more obvious. In Iraq, each day brings multiple new horrors. Now that long suffering country stands on the precipice of another civil war. In Syria, Salafi Jihadists are waging an unconstrained war of sectarian hatred. In Turkey, terrorists (reportedly allied to the Syrian regime) have brought mayhem to once quiet streets.

3) Kerry’s ‘Boots on the ground’ comment suggests that Obama wants to invade

Kerry’s ‘controversial’ remark should not be controversial. The Administration has gone to extreme lengths to distance their proposed intervention away a ground invasion. This being said, the evident controversy indicates just how politicized the Congressional authorization has become (as I suggested it would). Trust is absent and along with it, rationality is suffering. Whether pro or anti the Administration’s intervention plans, if Al Qa’ida affiliates were to gain access to WMDs, all of us would most certainly want 'boots on the ground' to re-acquire those weapons. But even then, as Congress well knows, any such action would likely be led by JSOC (who include WMD interdiction in their core focus orientation) rather than conventional ground forces. In this sense, Kerry isn't being deceitful, he's only being prudent, honest and rational. Whether it's Pakistan or Syria, the prospect of WMDs in terrorist hands = a true doomsday scenario.

4) The Assad-Hizballah-Iran alliance is unshakable

Just as the US-UK have disagreements, so too do America's adversaries. For one example, consider the Lebanese Hizballah. Discredited by their support for Assad’s slaughter, Hizballah is facing a serious identity challenge. In this sense, reports of growing tensions between Hizballah and Assad are a big deal. These frictions follow in the footsteps of a similar weakening between Assad and another of his allies- Hamas. The US has an opportunity here. If the US were to enact the form of action that I proposed in point (2), we could hope to expand existing fractures within Assad's alliance. It’s true, Hizballah poses a significant threat to US interests. Nonetheless, like Iran, this is a group that understands and is restrained by our political courage. 

Note- for my thoughts on Russia's strategy vis-a-vis Syria -please see point (3) of this post.

5 latest thoughts - US debate over Syria

1) White House Waltz

On Monday, Senators Graham and McCain visited with President Obama at the White House. The reason for the meeting was pretty simple. The President knows that he needs Republican support to push his authorization of force 'strategy' through Congress. Yet, McCain's presence indicates something else - the President's desperation. President Obama knows that in making pledges (or even being perceived to make pledges) to McCain/Graham over a willingness to use major military force against Assad, he risks alienating other members of Congress (on both sides) who are deeply skeptical about a major strike. By inviting McCain/Graham, it's only possible to draw one conclusion - that the President has judged that he will not win authorization without the influence of more interventionist minded conservatives. 

I'm cognizant that this strategy might be a political necessity (McCain's influence is substantial). Nevertheless, it provides a profound example of the contradiction that infects this Administration's political management of the present crisis. They establish a 'red line' and then pretend it's pink. They claim that the President has authority to use force without Congress, but simultaneously, they insinuate that he doesn't. They suggest that the strikes will be ''limited and narrow'', but simultaneously, they tell others that the military action will be serious and comprehensive. 

           Whether you believe that America needs to make a more substantial intervention in Syria, or whether you believe that such a course would constitute a grievous mistake, it's evident to all that the Administration's position is devoid of clarity.

2) Obama Administration's Politicization of Leaks

The front page of the New York Times (at least online!) leads with an article on Syria. More specifically, it also offers this inadvertent gem of a quote - 

''Officials said that... Mr. Obama indicated that a covert effort by the United States to arm and train Syrian rebels was beginning to yield results: the first 50-man cell of fighters, who have been trained by the C.I.A., was beginning to sneak into Syria.'' 

I'm sorry, but if the second paragraph of the lead story of the world's most prestigious newspaper prints something... it ain't covert. To me, this latest leak represents a broader failing on the part of the Administration - when it comes to leaks, they apply two sets of rules - one for military/civil servant leakers, another for themselves. In light of the President's recent rhetoric on the need for a legislative balance to the Executive, this leaking also represents an act of exceptional hypocrisy. The Administration is treating solemn state secrets as political footballs. Except... they're playing the role of both player and referee.

3) Putin's intransigence

The Russian Government is continuing to spout their spiel about how the US is lying etc. etc. To be honest, I don't really listen to the Putin-posse anymore. President Putin seems to have taken the worst elements of Russian history - the arrogance of the Romanovs, the paranoid authoritarianism of Stalin and the cartoonish corruption of Yeltsin... mixed them together and incorporated himself in their essence. He clearly has zero interest in serious dialogue with the United States. Until he does, President Obama should just ignore him. I mean that. The 'reset' has been a complete and unmitigated disaster.

4) Hagel, Kerry and Dempsey - Hill Testimony

The President's greatest assets are off to the Hill. Their job? To persuade a highly hesitant Congress to support military action against Assad. At least on Syria, this is the Obama A-team. Kerry has been the face of American resolve since Assad's massacre and Hagel has lead the US capability-orientation for a possible strike. But most important, when it comes to Martin Dempsey (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs), as I've argued before, the President has a military leader of the highest order. Incidentally, Dempsey also has another talent...

5) Foreign Reactions

As I argued in my Week column on Sunday, when it comes to America's evolving policy towards Assad, international actors are paying very close attention to DC politics. In this vein, it's unsurprising that we're seeing the following two noticeable developments:

• Growing concern and doubt on the part of US allies in the region.
• The Lebanese Hizballah mobilizing their defensive/offensive capabilities.

Finally, if this report (that the Administration is planning to reach out to Iran) is true, it would speak to a seriously delusional endeavor. Since 2003, the Iranian negotiating strategy has proved one thing above all else - whether Ahmadinejad or Rouhani, America cannot negotiate with Iran from a position of weakness.

Syria- US Military Outlines Intervention Options

General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has outlined a number of possible military strategies that the US would be able to employ inside Syria. As evidenced by his testimony, Dempsey is reluctant to engage in an open ended military commitment in that country. That's understandable. Hampered by the military's sequester cuts (which, if left in effect for more than a few years would be catastrophic), Dempsey appears anxious to caution Congress away from major military action that would drain US capabilities even further. But at the same time, Dempsey was honest and unequivocal in his military judgement - if the President so desires, the US can destroy Assad's regime. In my opinion President Obama is deeply cautious about further US engagement in Syria. My concern is that every other actor is overtly engaged.

I'll be writing more on this issue later in the week. In the interim, check out some of my related writings. And... have a read about one of Dempsey's greatest moments in battle against the Mahdi Army in Iraq.

What I believe the US should do in Syria

The continuing bloodshed in Syria is terrible. I believe that greater, more aggressive action is needed on the part of the international community. I also believe that Europe must learn that this situation is another example of why they must spend more on defense.

Having said this, I will break my reasoning into two considerations - the strategic utility of  a non-US Military rooted intervention and how such an intervention could be implemented effectively.

Regarding a prospective military intervention, my primary concern is that direct US Military intervention in Syria would pose substantial risks. A major point here is in the fact that much of Syria is protected by a comparatively advanced air defense system. This is a system that’s defeat would require a substantial air campaign on the part of the United States – a campaign that would risk both Syrian civilians and American flight crews. Another concern is the relative competence of the Syrian armed forces in comparison to those of Gaddafi. Faced with direct US Military intervention, these units might dramatically escalate their campaign against Syrian civilians. These units would also be likely to pose a greater threat to US interests in the region. I also worry that a military intervention would require a substantial re-direction of resources away from other critical US Military missions, while simultaneously risking Iranian escalation. In such a situation, the US would be left stretched and our regional priorities would be left highly vulnerable. Critically, Afghanistan is a core US national security priority and requires the continued focus of our national power.

My argument instead is that the US should adopt a strategy that combines increased diplomatic pressure on Assad, Iran and Hizballah AND China and Russia, with physical US support to Syrian rebel elements.  The US should make clear to the Chinese and Russian leadership that we regard their continued support for Assad with major discontent. Consequently, the US should be ready to take escalatory diplomatic reprisals if China and Russia fail to adapt their position. To be blunt, the US must ultimately be prepared to withdraw our ambassadors to Beijing and Moscow. If we truly value human rights, we must be willing to stand up with purpose. Alongside diplomatic action, I believe that the US should provide logistical support (weapons money, tools, intelligence support etc) to identified rebel elements. This support should be given in concert with European and other regional partner states, so as to maximize support efficiency and credibility, while also minimizing the risk of this 'support' entering the hands of Islamist extremists (a risk that cannot be totally eliminated). The CIA Special Activities Division is well suited to such a task.

Ultimately, I believe that this balanced approach would dramatically increase pressure on Assad while mitigating the negative risks of an open military intervention. Such action would also serve to increase pressure on the Lebanese Hizballah, via highlighting the hypocrisy of Hizballah's continued support for the Assad regime. It is in this way that the Assad-Iran-Hizballah alliance could be weakened and Assad's grip on power could be slowly but systematically degraded.

General Dempsey singing

Chairman of Joint Chiefs, Martin Dempsey singing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zphRQJB2gM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kxc5Inqo7U

Tom Rogan Thinks..

1) General Dempsey will make a superb Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He is bright, tough, grounded and has obvious attention to the costs that Iraq and Afghanistan have imposed (and continue to impose) on the Military and their families. Along with This article from seven years ago, it is clear to see why he was picked.

2) A very good article in the NyTimes concerning the above mentioned costs of war. As is this article from a couple of months back.

3) The FBI should transfer agents from its Counter-Terrorism Division into the Criminal Investigation Division. They can be assigned to supplement CT details on a reactive basis when the need arises. But the lesson of situations like this is that there are too many agents permanently assigned to 'terrorism' investigations. Of course, the political ramifications of such a change in approach are obvious. No one wants to transfer agents and then get blamed (likely unfairly) when terrorists do attack. But FBI agents are too valuable to waste on people like this guy.

4) The FIFA joke continues.

5) Barcelona's football yesterday was incredible. In my opinion this year's team is the best team in history.

Tom Rogan Thinks..

1) How Disney ever thought that this would work is beyond me.

2) If Sarah Palin runs for President it will be unfortunate.


3) Wisconsin Republicans should pass the bill again. To do so would be good Republican politics- honest decisive action in support of basic party ideals. Republican values are not served by running around screaming like the Bachmann brigade.


4) Gen. Dempsey would be a great choice as the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I especially enjoyed his quote about AC-130s a few years ago while fighting al-Sadr in Iraq..