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.

Immigration Reform, Intelligence, DoD, Hijackings.

A few thoughts this morning...

1) House Republicans are making an awful mistake on immigration reform. I get and respect that many members of the Republican caucus oppose the Senate's immigration bill. That's fair enough. But to simply offer intransigent opposition without response would be terrible mistake. It would play to Democratic caricatures of the GOP as a party that has no interest in governing. It would reinforce negative perceptions of the GOP in the eyes of Hispanic Americans. Most of all, it would represent a stunning neglect of the ultimate responsibility of elected officials to govern. There can be no doubt that America's immigration system is broken. It deserves and requires resolution. Yet, I fear that in much the same way as was the case with health care reform, by ceding the debate, Republicans will also effectively cede control over the contours of immigration reform. This will lead to the worst possible outcome - open borders, unfettered amnesty and a tremendous political defeat for the GOP brand. House Republicans need to listen to conservatives like Paul Ryan.

2) Members of Congress are complaining that the Intelligence Community regularly obfuscate their reports to the intelligence oversight committees. This is nothing new (see The Deep State). Yet, it's open airing speaks to a dysfunction at the heart of the US Government. Many intelligence professionals simply do not believe that politicians can be trusted to make objective decisions on the merits of particular intelligence operations. As a result, they do their utmost to sell those programs in uncontroversial ways. Don't get me wrong, misleading Congress is absolutely unacceptable and where it occurs, it must now stop. Nevertheless, Congress bears responsibility for its shifting rhetoric on the constitution of appropriate intelligence activities.

3) I share Chuck Hagel's concern over the looming impact of the sequester on the US Military. Unfortunately, until Democrats accept the inevitability of major entitlement reform, the prospects of an appropriate defense resolution are very low. It's stunning to me that liberals still refuse to engage in meaningful dialogue over entitlements. The numbers speak for themselves. In the interim however, it's crucial that Hagel resists efforts by President Obama to play politics with the sequester (a preference for which Obama has previously shown significant sympathy). For one example, it makes no sense that USN/USAF fighter squadrons are seeing degraded readiness. We should be closing bases before degrading our power projection capabilities.

4) A new book on air hijackings has been released. The author covers the 'epidemic' in hijackings that afflicted the world in the 1960s/70s. Of course, things have since changed. The threat of suicide hijackings and the rise in politically motivated attacks (especially by Palestinian affiliated terrorist organizations) forced western governments to develop highly trained counter-terrorism capabilities. For example, the United States lead agency for plane focused hostage rescues is ACE (aka Delta Force). Combined with greatly improved airport security efforts, the ability to respond to and effectively resolve hijackings has meant that air travel is now substantially safer.

Hagel's horrible day

Chuck Hagel did not have a fun day in the US Senate. He appeared bumbling and badly briefed. In fact, he exemplified my concerns from a few weeks back. He didn't answer straight on the Iraq surge - he should have admitted his mistake. He implied that Iran was a legitimate democracy - ???. He suggested that President Obama was focused on containing rather than preventing nuclear Iran - thus weakening the already weak (see Negatives-Iran) US policy. In short, this was a disastrous hearing (see clips here). Far worse than most political analysts expected. For me, Hagel's abysmal performance also raises a troubling secondary point. Why did Obama select him? I am increasingly convinced that the answer is domestic politics. Along with others, I believe that the President intends to use Hagel to try and bring a semblance of Republican legitimacy and cover to his second term defense plans. Proposals which I suspect will involve further military spending cuts. Anyway, I don't see how Hagel can get through after this. He might be a good man, but today he wasn't credible.

Hagel, Obama re-Afghanistan, Free Speech, Gun Control, China

1) I was wrong in my earlier support for Chuck Hagel. After re-considering my 'capability, knowledge and character' test (the framework I use when deciding whether to support cabinet nominees), I now no longer believe that Hagel meets the 'knowledge' requirement to be America's next Secretary of Defense. Put simply, his positions on the major issues of national security are deeply troubling to me. They indicate a world view that I believe to be misguided. This isn't about his Israel comments - it should be obvious to all that US-Israeli interests will sometimes diverge (though the anti-Semitic tone Hagel used was unpleasant). However, I cannot understand how Hagel honestly opposes sanctions against Iran. I cannot understand how he can be so openly comfortable with the notion of additional cuts to defense (further cuts on top of Obama's $450 bn/ten year cuts). Mainly, I have serious issues with Hagel's position on Iraq and Afghanistan. Hagel referred to the Iraq 'Surge' as the ''most dangerous foreign policy blunder since Vietnam.'' When in fact, it was an audacious policy of great success. Hagel has also signaled a comfort with  Obama's increasingly ludicrous Afghanistan policy (see point 2). Taken together, these positions present a concerning picture about the advice and leadership that Hagel would provide as SecDef. Like other conservatives, I also worry that Obama intends to use Hagel to put a Republican face on major defense cuts.

2) Obama's policy towards Afghanistan has always been a disaster. First, he couldn't make his mind up about whether to support McChrystal's strategy. Second, he announced to the Taliban that the US would withdraw on a timeline. Third, he has systematically entertained the notion that his domestic spending priorities outweigh this key concern of national security. Fourth, he allows his policy to be driven by the shifting tides of US domestic politics, rather than by the advice of his senior military/national security leadership. Obama must not burn our Afghanistan successes in a misguided rush for the exit.

3) The growing complaints over video game/movie violence are pathetic and to me at least, also exceptionally annoying. We live in a free society. The First Amendment protects the right of professionals in the entertainment industry to shape their creations as they so desire. This is simple. If games/movies exceed the boundaries of social acceptance, then those productions will cease to gain consumer support and their producers will go out of business. In this context, at the margins free speech regulates itself. America must not follow the European course on free speech. A route typified by highly destructive wars against freedom.

4) Alex Jones is a delusional moron. He loves the sound of his own voice and he doesn't have a clue. But if Jones is a representative of American conservatism, Stalin was a democrat. Piers Morgan is trying to improve ratings on his show and I expect that he is succeeding. On a more serious note, there's one major question that I have for aggressive gun control advocates. If access is the key, why is gun crime highest in highly restrictive gun control locales like Chicago, DC, LA and Detroit?

5) In the long term, China will not sustainably replace the United States as the world's sole superpower. Consider China's absence of basic freedoms, failure to respect human rights, entrenchment of wealth and power in an unelected few and endemic culture of corrupt political patronage. These social challenges portend storms over the horizon.

Pakistan-India, Hagel for SecDef, Assad speech, China threats, UK in EU, Debt Limit

1) The killing of a Pakistani soldier by the Indian military, illustrates the continuing tensions in Kashmir and beyond. I primarily blame Pakistan for this dynamic. Until the Pakistani intelligence service ends its support for anti-Indian terrorists, opportunities for a relationship of greater trust will not be forthcoming. It isn't too good when you have two states who a) hate each other, b) live next to each other, c) are both armed with nuclear weapons. Sadly, it doesn't seem to bother the Pakistani Government when their forces are killed by domestic extremists. Because they don't care, we must. 

2) I wouldn't pick Chuck Hagel to be my Secretary of Defense (for one, I think he was wrong to oppose sanctions against Iran), but I'm not the President. And if Obama wants Hagel for the role, I don't believe that Senate Republicans should oppose his nomination. Certainly, AIPAC's opinions of Hagel are irrelevant. Instead, a candidate's selection for this critical cabinet position should be made on the basis of three considerations: capability, knowledge and character. I believe that Hagel meets these standards and I don't believe that his nomination is worth another partisan battle (especially when he's a Republican anyway).

3) Assad is delusional. He still thinks that he has the power to survive. But he is running out of time. His regime is increasingly surrounded and is suffering defections and a dwindling supply of money. The only interesting part of Assad's speech came when he thanked China and Russia for supporting him. Those two states should be ashamed of their positions on the Syrian civil war. As I argued last week, Putin's Russia is a gangster state.

4) China is engaging in increasingly threatening behavior towards Japan. This follows further Chinese belligerence against other regional states like Vietnam. Obama must ensure that we stand firmly with our Pacific allies. And those around the world who hold fashionable anti-American views should also take note. China is no ally to international freedom. Western romanticism over China's economic rise must be tempered by reality.

5) The British Government is looking to fundamentally re-shape their relationship with the EU. This desire stems from two motivations. First, the UK has had to cede sovereignty to the EU and the UK Government now wants these powers repatriated. This is especially relevant in the field of Judicial issues. Second, with the UK economy still struggling, the Conservative Party needs an issue that can galvanize voters to support them. Because of public dissatisfaction with the EU, pushing for reform in this area is seen to present a political opportunity.

6) The Democrats are freaking out because they know that Republicans are going to push for major entitlement reform come the debt limit negotiations in March. As a conservative, for me this issue is simple. While I supported the fiscal cliff deal, I did so in large part because of the need to show conciliation as a foundation for future compromises from the President. Now, if the Democrats refuse substantial spending cuts/entitlement reforms in return for new revenue and a rise to the debt limit, the GOP should simply refuse to raise the debt limit. Again, this is simple. The American people have seen Republicans newly willing to make tough compromises for the sake of the national interest. Americans also understand that major spending cuts are necessary. So, if the Democrats want to be obstinate and refuse such cuts, then that is their prerogative. And their political risk. In such a situation, the Democrats will bear ultimate responsibility for the catastrophe that would stem from a default on the national debt. (Oh... and the 14th amendment debt argument/ platinum coin argument that some Democrats are throwing out... are totally absurd. I will be writing about the 14th issue in more detail next week.)