Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Conservatives and Syria

I am of a violently mixed mind on Syria.  I am prepared to believe that the use of chemical weapons is a "red line"; and so when the President cited it a year ago, he would have had my lukewarm support for intervention.  But there was an election on, and something like principle and American leadership wasn't going to get in the way of Mr. Obama's campaign...and so we did nothing.  A year later, Assad has apparently used chemical weapons again, which has Mr. Obama now actually thinking about strikes of some sort.  The only problem is that the past year has been spent doing nothing of substance to prepare for such a strike, and we find ourselves one year into Sequestration with a rapidly hollowing military which is less capable of doing what it should have been dispatched to do a year ago.

The President made his impassioned plea for support for this intervention in a Saturday Rose Garden address, in which he spoke of the need for strength and response.  He also apparently reversed course and decided to seek Congressional sanction for his action, much to be braying approval of the Bought and Paid For Media who found themselves unable to find historical precedent for such sagacity, forgetting of course the actions of the George Bush's (The Elder, The Younger).  Satisfied with his effort to whip the country into a war frenzy, he repaired to the golf course without summoning Congress to return from its extended break to take the matter up.

And so we are left to ponder the facts before us.  The "rebels" in Syria include a not insignificant number of Al Qaeda related Islamists.  The President--perhaps sensing the potential pitfalls of overthrowing Assad when there is such little clarity into what comes next--has taken regime change off the table.  Presumably, whatever is planned for Syria would be from the "punishment" playbook, the one whose historical record--in the Arab World at least--seems to serve only to leave emboldened leaders in place thumbing their nose at the United States to the cheers of the restive Arab Street. 

Great Britain has discussed this issue within its own political system, the Prime Minister having summoned Parliament from vacation specifically to do so.  Mr. Cameron was unceremoniously abandoned by the "Tea Party" wing of his party, reflecting a dose of common sense of the British people who seemed collectively to be saying, "Are you kidding me?  We're not going to do this again.  And besides, we could hardly "do" Libya; Syria is a harder nut to crack.

It is--that is for sure.  But I don't want readers to get too carried away with this sentiment.  Yes, the Syrians have an advanced integrated air defense system (IADS).  And yes, they have a number of ballistic and cruise missiles, target-able at US interests in the region.  But we shouldn't get carried away.  If we decide to do this, Assad will never see it coming.  His first indication that something is wrong will be explosions and rubble.  That doesn't mean he won't react in unpredictable ways, and it doesn't mean that his puppeteers in Tehran won't take such an attack as a call to arms...it simply means that as a military matter, taking down Syria's Command and Control would not be a particularly taxing endeavor---provided we can 1) get carrier based forces into the region and or 2) we get neighbors to let us use their air bases for the attack.  Tomahawks from ships and subs are not enough.

So...we CAN do this--though I really don't know what "THIS" is yet.  The question is whether we should.  I have been dead set against it for the past few days, but I am beginning to wonder about the long term damage Mr. Obama is doing to America's prestige and its place in the world.  I offer two pieces for your review as you make up your own minds, one from Elliot Cohen--a friend and one of Mitt Romney's senior foreign policy guys--and another by a couple of Republican Congressmen, one of whom I think has a chance to be President someday (Tom Cotton). 

As Albert Einstein used to say, "I'm gonna have a tink on this".  Maybe you will too. 

5 comments:

  1. http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-09-04.html#read_more

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm not at all convinced that it was Assad who used the gas. That issue hasn't been plumbed. If it was the rebels and that somehow becomes a "proven fact" will the USGOV ally itself with Assad in attacking al Qaeda/the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria?

    The Obama Administration has been so loose with the truth that it's difficult to know if they are telling the truth now. And that makes it difficult to get behind anything that they propose either on the domestic or foreign fronts.

    A meaningful impact for the Syrians isn't cratering their runways and then leaving. It means a land invasion and the distinct possibility of another ham handed American botch the way that played our end game in Iraq -- or a tail tuck and run the way we're doing in Afghanistan. And what will the US or the world have to show for it? What in Iraq? What in Afghanistan? What in Viet Nam? What in Somalia?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I see a great disconnect between the Kerry and Obama of old (opposing Bush 1/2 and all wars) and the 'new, responsible SECSTATE/POTUS., Our Navy is becoming hollow and that is the force from which this strike would be coming. ( I note that no Littoral Combat Ship would be appropriate to use in this case...of Littoral Combat).

    Questions remain:
    -Do we have a dog in this fight? Its easy to find the bad guys, but exactly WHO are the good guys again? It appears as if all of them are 'bad' to one degree or another.
    -Bad as Chemical Weapons are, is it our job alone to spank the sovereign nation that uses them?
    -Who exactly is going to take them away from Syria? Not us.
    -What is the origin of these weapons? Russia? Iraq (ahem)?

    Finally, whatever chance we have of stabilizing this mess will come through bilateral/multilateral approaches that will / MUST include Russia. Striking Syria unilaterally would not be constructive in accomplishing that. And one unintended consequence might be attacks inside the US...

    Why not set a deadline (publicly or privately) for Russia to take away or destroy the Chemical weapons? Or else what? Or else we loose the tomahawks AND provide weapons to the rebels. So far, MRE's aren't helping....

    ReplyDelete
  4. I see a great disconnect between the Kerry and Obama of old (opposing Bush 1/2 and all wars) and the 'new, responsible SECSTATE/POTUS., Our Navy is becoming hollow and that is the force from which this strike would be coming. ( I note that no Littoral Combat Ship would be appropriate to use in this case...of Littoral Combat).

    Questions remain:
    -Do we have a dog in this fight? Its easy to find the bad guys, but exactly WHO are the good guys again? It appears as if all of them are 'bad' to one degree or another.
    -Bad as Chemical Weapons are, is it our job alone to spank the sovereign nation that uses them?
    -Who exactly is going to take them away from Syria? Not us.
    -What is the origin of these weapons? Russia? Iraq (ahem)?

    Finally, whatever chance we have of stabilizing this mess will come through bilateral/multilateral approaches that will / MUST include Russia. Striking Syria unilaterally would not be constructive in accomplishing that. And one unintended consequence might be attacks inside the US...

    Why not set a deadline (publicly or privately) for Russia to take away or destroy the Chemical weapons? Or else what? Or else we loose the tomahawks AND provide weapons to the rebels. So far, MRE's aren't helping....

    ReplyDelete
  5. I was glad to see LL's comment about not being at all certain it was even Assad that used the chemical weapons. I heard Rep. Gomert substituting for Sean Hannity the other day, and I thought he made a very good point - Assad has been running downhill of late - what would be the point of him using chemical weapons. Turn it around, and if you are "the rebels" and you are getting your butt kicked, what better way to get the US off the sidelines than to provide a little red line game changer?

    Ocean Oak took the words out of my mouth, contrasting the "before" & "after" of both Obama & Kerry. Someone should be running all their anti Iraq War comments and juxtapose them w/ their current feeble attempts to make their case.

    Bottom Line: I don't trust this President & his Administration.

    ReplyDelete