Let me start by saying I’m in agreement with Secretary of State John Kerry: What happened on August 21 in Ghouta, Syria was a war crime, a crime against humanity, a moral obscenity. Those responsible should absolutely be brought to account, by any international actor (read: USA/NATO) with the will and ability to do so.
The problem, at this early stage, is building a convincing case to identify the responsible parties.
For my part, I’m better than 90 percent certain that Bashar al-Assad’s regime is responsible for the attack, even if Assad himself didn’t give the order. I think his government is also responsible for the five previous, smaller-scale uses of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war.
My 90 percent certainty (or Kerry’s “moral certainty”) isn’t enough, though. It wouldn’t be enough if our country wasn’t already exhausted by Mid-East interventionalism.
The Russians, for the own parochial reasons, are insisting that the Syrian opposition ginned up the sarin attack, as a way to draw the West into this war. I think that’s unlikely…but it’s just plausible enough to reach the level of “reasonable doubt” that should stop America’s march toward a Syrian confrontation, if only temporarily.
Because if the U.S. is going to attack Syria, President Obama must present as close to an iron-clad case as possible. Or any case, for that matter. As of this writing, he hasn’t even tried.
As of this writing, the president hasn’t presented his case to the American people. He hasn’t presented it to the entire Congress, nor to the U.N. General Assembly. He doesn’t even have the backing of the United Kingdom, or the Arab League. I don’t think he needs all of these things to take action, but he surely needs some of them.
Nevertheless, the purposeful drumbeat out of Washington suggests that an attack is all but imminent, regardless of world opinion and procedural niceties. Maybe that’s a bluff, but if so, it’s idiotic. You DO NOT BLUFF when it comes to armed engagement in the Arab world.
More likely, Obama is operating under the assumption that he doesn’t require congressional approval for a limited engagement, however ambiguously that’s defined. And maybe he’s right about that—Reagan, after all, got no congressional backing for the U.S. military’s first post-Vietnam ground campaign: the 1983 invasion of Grenada.
That’s irrelevant, though, because that represents political thinking. What Obama needs to engage in is some strategic thinking…hell, even a bit of tactical thinking reveals that the chances for a “limited engagement” are slim indeed.
Spend a moment or two war-gaming this out in your mind, and you realize there are few scenarios where the U.S. doesn’t get sucked into another quagmire. I don’t think it’s likely Assad would strike back directly at us, but he could certainly escalate the conflict in other ways. He might, for example, cease using chemical weapons, but begin using conventional munitions against civilian targets on an unprecedented scale. He’d be daring us to respond, in other words.
And we would. And we’d be at war in the Middle East. Again.
I repeat, if the president can present an unassailable case that Assad or his minions ordered the August 21 attack, then I support retaliation, and accept any repurcussions that come after. I can’t and won’t support that based on what we know today.
Regardless, and regardless of whether the president alters his course and begins building consensus, I think we’re going to hit Syria. Sooner or later, we’re going to attack them.
So I offer this bit of advice, under the safe assumption that Assad doesn’t read my blog…
Mister President, do not be predictable. Assad thinks he knows our capabilities. He thinks he knows what’s coming. He expects stand-off attacks on command-and-control centers, Baath party headquarters, and probably chemical weapons depots. He’s preparing for that right now, and he thinks he can withstand it.
The United States has always been most strategically successful when doing the unexpected. Hitler expected the D-Day invasion to come at Calais, so we landed at Normandy. The North Koreans expected to win the seige at Pusan, so MacArthur launched an amphibious assault on Inchon. In 1991, Saddam Hussein expected a frontal assault, so Norman Schwarzkopf threw a westward-flanking Hail Mary.
Here’s what I’d do: I’d identify loyalist residential areas in Damascus (or wherever), those peopled by the high-ranking elite. Then I’d absolutely pummel those areas with shock-and-awe levels of precision-guided munitions…all of which would be loaded with inert or dummy warheads. Call it a long-distance, laser-guided message; not to Assad, but to people within striking distance of Assad. If the stars line up just right, Assad would be out of power within a week, and the war would be over.
Armchair general-ing? Admittedly. Likely to happen? No, dammit.
What’s much more likely is that President Obama will continue down the road he’s already on, and another ill-conceived and bloody desert war will define his legacy.
