QOTD — What to Do About Syria?
This morning, I listened as NPR gave John McCain more air time to call for some type of intervention in the Syrian mess. Lindsay Graham has been screeching for more capability for someone over there to have better capacity to kill one another. Even Mitt Romney has gotten into the act to call President Obama weak over his handling of Syria. In the meantime, we have a press running all over the place certain that chemical weapons have been used in Syria, when that is far from certain:
A careful review of the physical evidence suggests there is still little to support the notion that the Assad government has used chemical weapons. The physical evidence appears to amount to a pair of blood samples — described in a letter to Congress as “physiological samples.” According to subsequent reporting by the Financial Times, there are only two samples — provided by the Syrian opposition — from different victims in different locations. The United Kingdom analyzed one sample at Porton Down; the United States analyzed the other sample, probably at Edgewood. The samples appear to confirm exposure to sarin. There are a lot of techniques that establish exposure to sarin. If you are interested, here are two papers from 2002 and 2008. Note the author with the Porton Down affiliation.
The president has rightly noted that the chain of custody — essentially all the evidence that would link the sample to a victim of a Syrian attack — is simply not intact. “We don’t know how they were used, when they were used, who used them,” Obama said.
(To put this in perpective — pretend you live next door to a gas station. And you are getting the smell and sheen of gas in the water coming out of your tap. You would need WAY more than two samples to claim that the gas station is contaminating your well. You would need to document how the samples were taken, who handled those samples, how those samples were analyzed with some confidence samples to ensure that the analytical equipment is working correctly. And here we have the GOP wanting to intervene based on way less evidence.)
And so far, the American people aren’t buying this sabre-rattling:
Sixty-two percent of the public say the United States has no responsibility to do something about the fighting in Syria between government forces and antigovernment groups, while just one-quarter disagree. Likewise, 56 percent say North Korea is a threat that can be contained for now without military action, just 15 percent say the situation requires immediate American action and 21 percent say the North is not a threat at all.
What do you think? Should the US do any intervention in Syria?
Tags: Syria
There’s no question that intervention will help Al Qaida. Let the Arab League take care of their own. And let the Israelis handle the bombing of chemical weapon plants. Syria will never be a US ally, and the only useful thing we can do to support pro-western rebel groups is send them weapons covertly.
I can’t figure out who the intervention would actually help at this point.
Bill Clinton tells a story that, whenever some hawkish advisor would come to him with his hair on fire insisting that we must strike somewhere immediately, he would ask a question: “Can we kill ’em tomorrow?” Meaning, Can it wait a while?
Ever had a crises situation at corporate, when all the bigwigs fly in and walk around analyzing and directing and asking too many questions of which the answers haven’t even been thought of yet, and nothing moves forward until they are all gone? … That sounds like Syria.
All those who are urging POTUS to give aid to Syria will be the first to criticize him if the Jihadists seize control. I can’t take these senators seriously any more.
One of the things I keep listening for is how this activity is supposed to be paid for. The voices rattling the sabres loudest are the ones screaming about stopping the government spending. One of these days, perhaps the press will start asking about how these guys intent to pay the tab on this business.
When considering a U.S. humanitarian military intervention — i.e. an intervention premised upon the notion that it will stop some atrocity in progress, as opposed to one premised upon a direct national security interest — I have a very simple two-pronged assessment system:
1. Does the United States have the capacity to execute the intervention successfully?
2. Will the intervention create a net positive outcome for the involved civilians while not worsening the position of the United States?
Those two clear points address myriad potential problems. And both must be satisfied to justify intervening.
The first one tells you not to do it if the U.S. can’t militarily execute a strategy successfully (for example if the topography, geography, or type of war prevent the successful use of the primary tactic such as airstrikes — or if a strike/invasion won’t actually stop the atrocity or accomplish its goals). And it tells you not to do it if the U.S. military is stretched too thin for a successful operation at necessary levels due to other engagements. Finally, it tells you not to do it if it brings reasonably likely chance of getting sucked in and failing after an initially successful entrance (a quagmire isn’t a win and avoiding one falls under capacity to succeed).
The second one tells you not to do it if intervening will make the situation worse for the affected civilians (total anarchy and brutal civil war with mass civilian slaughter *resulting from* an intervention is not better than “liberating” an oppressed population — see Iraq). And it also tells you again not to intervene to save a population if the goal is totally open-ended and will make the U.S. more precarious. If the presence of U.S. troops helps stabilize a situation and establish a workable transition to a permanent replacement, that’s fine. If the U.S. troops exacerbate a situation or are the ONLY thing preventing genocide permanently, that doesn’t help either. There has to be a better plan and a way out/forward for both the affected civilians and for the U.S. Why? Because even setting aside U.S. interests and costs, every quagmire intervention makes it less possible to help the next place. Thus it’s against global humanitarian interests to have a failed mess of an intervention in any one place.
I actually highly support the principle of military interventions for humanitarian reasons that don’t directly affect U.S. interests. But only if they satisfy those 2 criteria.
Syria doesn’t meet that 2-pronged test. Due to Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. isn’t prepared for a short or long intervention in a large(ish), mountainous nation like Syria that’s in the middle of a big civil war with no clear end in sight (or even a winner to back that won’t screw over the population later or stab the U.S. in the back). There’s almost not even a concrete goal the United States could successfully “achieve” in such an intervention. No easy way to take out the regime, no plan to deal with the resulting mess if the regime does fall (which won’t end the conflict), and no legitimate group to empower to lead a transition successfully to reunite the nation. So the first one fails. And it’s not at all clear (unlike say Libya or Kosovo) that the U.S. can even actually help the civilian population and could even make it worse. While harming U.S. strength. So the second definitely fails.
Thus, the U.S. shouldn’t intervene in Syria as the situation currently stands.