Attacking Syria wouldn't solve much
The U.N. is the vehicle to enforce laws against chemical weapons
Tom Maertens
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee this week approved Obama’s request for an authorization to use force against the Syrian government. The resolution would permit strikes against Syria for 60 days, with the possibility of 30 more days after consultation with Congress, but would specifically block the use of ground troops. It has yet to be approved by the full Senate or the House.
Missing from that resolution is a requirement to seek U.N. concurrence for military action. An attack without Security Council authorization would violate a fundamental international rule, a prohibition on the use of military force for anything but self-defense.
Virtually nobody describes the Syrian situation as a threat to the U.S. requiring self-defense measures.
Some see a threat to Israel, which will always energize those who believe no price is too great for Americans to pay to defend Israel. As the New York Times has reported, Israel supports Obama’s limited strike proposal because it prefers a stalemate rather than a victory by either Assad or by Sunni jihadis, who are coming to dominate the rebel movement.
What is also missing from the discussion is a clear purpose and achievable objectives — a strategy. The proposed intervention is variously described as punishing Assad for using chemical weapons, as degrading his military capability, or as “changing the equation on the ground,” a nebulous all-purpose concept if there ever was one. How much should we punish him? Until we destroy the country? Until he says “uncle?”
Outrage is not a strategy. For a country that has used napalm, white phosphorous, Agent Orange and incendiary raids on civilians in the not-so-distant past, we might temper our self-righteousness. Besides, do we overlook the 100,000 Syrians killed so far in the civil war but retaliate for probable use of Sarin? For those following the investigation, it is not a “slam dunk” that Assad ordered that gas attack.
There are no analyses of how an American intervention changes this civil war or when our intervention or the war ends.
There is no articulated strategy to achieve a stable endgame, which would almost certainly require U.N. peacekeepers to separate the contesting parties, or even why it is in America’s interest to get involved in another sectarian conflict in the Middle East.
Once the U.S. intervenes, it cannot afford to lose, even if there is no prospect of “victory” in any realistic time frame — which would surely be the case in Syria: Sunni and Shia have been fighting each other since the battle of Karbala in 680, with no indication their religious fervor or extremism is abating.
Any intervention would also likely trigger Syrian retaliation, probably in coordination with its ally Iran, using Hezbollah and other proxies. Are we prepared for another terrorist threat from a group which has not targeted us to date?
Retired Marine General Anthony Zinni, who was head of the Central Command when we launched cruise missiles against Iraq and Afghanistan warned that “The one thing we should learn is that you can’t get a little bit pregnant.”
He added “You’ll knee-jerk into the first option, blowing something up, without thinking through what this could lead to.” Sound familiar?
The US and Russia issued a joint proposal in May 2013 to organize an international conference to seek a political solution in Syria. U.N. special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi played a major role in negotiating an end to Lebanon’s civil war, and is currently attempting to bring all the parties to the table.
A second track is underway to train and arm the fragmented opposition groups. Several Muslim states — Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and Turkey — have provided arms, which the U.S. is also preparing to do.
Removing Assad would be difficult, and perhaps not even wise, as it might open the door to rule by Muslim extremists. The Bush administration overthrew Saddam without realizing that it was eliminating a counterweight to Iran and instead, was setting up a new majority-Shia state aligned with Iran.
Syria is a party to the 1925 protocol banning the use of poison gas, one of the oldest international treaties. Our goal should be to mobilize support for that treaty and for the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits the production, stockpiling, or use of chemical weapons, even though Syria never signed it.
Such treaties have the force of international law, and a concerted effort would serve to establish the precedent of the international community uniting to defend international law.
In the meantime, Obama should return that Nobel Peace Prize.
Tom Maertens served as National Security Council director for nonproliferation and homeland defense under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, and as deputy coordinator for counterterrorism in the State Department during and after 9/11.
This article was also published in The Mankato Free Press, September 7, 2013.
Tom Maertens
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee this week approved Obama’s request for an authorization to use force against the Syrian government. The resolution would permit strikes against Syria for 60 days, with the possibility of 30 more days after consultation with Congress, but would specifically block the use of ground troops. It has yet to be approved by the full Senate or the House.
Missing from that resolution is a requirement to seek U.N. concurrence for military action. An attack without Security Council authorization would violate a fundamental international rule, a prohibition on the use of military force for anything but self-defense.
Virtually nobody describes the Syrian situation as a threat to the U.S. requiring self-defense measures.
Some see a threat to Israel, which will always energize those who believe no price is too great for Americans to pay to defend Israel. As the New York Times has reported, Israel supports Obama’s limited strike proposal because it prefers a stalemate rather than a victory by either Assad or by Sunni jihadis, who are coming to dominate the rebel movement.
What is also missing from the discussion is a clear purpose and achievable objectives — a strategy. The proposed intervention is variously described as punishing Assad for using chemical weapons, as degrading his military capability, or as “changing the equation on the ground,” a nebulous all-purpose concept if there ever was one. How much should we punish him? Until we destroy the country? Until he says “uncle?”
Outrage is not a strategy. For a country that has used napalm, white phosphorous, Agent Orange and incendiary raids on civilians in the not-so-distant past, we might temper our self-righteousness. Besides, do we overlook the 100,000 Syrians killed so far in the civil war but retaliate for probable use of Sarin? For those following the investigation, it is not a “slam dunk” that Assad ordered that gas attack.
There are no analyses of how an American intervention changes this civil war or when our intervention or the war ends.
There is no articulated strategy to achieve a stable endgame, which would almost certainly require U.N. peacekeepers to separate the contesting parties, or even why it is in America’s interest to get involved in another sectarian conflict in the Middle East.
Once the U.S. intervenes, it cannot afford to lose, even if there is no prospect of “victory” in any realistic time frame — which would surely be the case in Syria: Sunni and Shia have been fighting each other since the battle of Karbala in 680, with no indication their religious fervor or extremism is abating.
Any intervention would also likely trigger Syrian retaliation, probably in coordination with its ally Iran, using Hezbollah and other proxies. Are we prepared for another terrorist threat from a group which has not targeted us to date?
Retired Marine General Anthony Zinni, who was head of the Central Command when we launched cruise missiles against Iraq and Afghanistan warned that “The one thing we should learn is that you can’t get a little bit pregnant.”
He added “You’ll knee-jerk into the first option, blowing something up, without thinking through what this could lead to.” Sound familiar?
The US and Russia issued a joint proposal in May 2013 to organize an international conference to seek a political solution in Syria. U.N. special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi played a major role in negotiating an end to Lebanon’s civil war, and is currently attempting to bring all the parties to the table.
A second track is underway to train and arm the fragmented opposition groups. Several Muslim states — Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and Turkey — have provided arms, which the U.S. is also preparing to do.
Removing Assad would be difficult, and perhaps not even wise, as it might open the door to rule by Muslim extremists. The Bush administration overthrew Saddam without realizing that it was eliminating a counterweight to Iran and instead, was setting up a new majority-Shia state aligned with Iran.
Syria is a party to the 1925 protocol banning the use of poison gas, one of the oldest international treaties. Our goal should be to mobilize support for that treaty and for the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits the production, stockpiling, or use of chemical weapons, even though Syria never signed it.
Such treaties have the force of international law, and a concerted effort would serve to establish the precedent of the international community uniting to defend international law.
In the meantime, Obama should return that Nobel Peace Prize.
Tom Maertens served as National Security Council director for nonproliferation and homeland defense under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, and as deputy coordinator for counterterrorism in the State Department during and after 9/11.
This article was also published in The Mankato Free Press, September 7, 2013.
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
Undoubtedly, a UN resolution would be helpful … except Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javid Zarif has claimed: “The Syria crisis is a trap set by Zionist pressure groups” while Vladimir Putin said that the current evidence on the chemical weapons attack having been carried out by the Syrian government was not convincing ---suggesting that rebel forces had launched the attack in order to provoke an international military strike against Assad's forces.
Which prompts the “cui bono” question … who benefits from the US ignoring the crisis ?
Bashar al-Assad for sure and of course, Russia and Iran, who not only enjoy higher oil revenues, but taunt America’s world influence.
Since, the Arab League has declared the “Syrian regime responsible for this heinous crime” and the European Union has called a chemical weapons attack in Damascus a crime against humanity and says it was probably carried out by the Syrian government … so there is strong support for action, yet doesn’t this show that the UN, as constructed with veto power by the Security Council, is unable to exercise any action ? Eliminate the “veto” and replace with a super-majority, then getting a UN resolution would be realistic suggestion.
David Cameron said "Many of us believe that there is a case for taking action when you are trying to prevent a humanitarian emergency. It's better with the UN Security Council resolution, but you cannot rule out taking action if you cannot get it. I think we should learn from some of the genocides we've seen in our world that there is an imperative for a line to be drawn."
IMO, while a McCain or Romney administration may have been willing to engage in the Syrian civil war, it appears that Obama does not want to … after all, it has languished on for two and a-half years. The change is obvious … the August 21st incident. It is unbelievable to me that some suggest that canisters containing chemical agent were brought into Ghouta by the Syrian opposition in concert with Saudi and Turkish supporters and then opened leading to the deaths of over a thousand --- versus, the assertion that the Assad government launched the strikes. Chemical strikes like this are dangerous -- typically, a chemical attack like this would come in the form of a rocket topped with a nose containing a liquid form of sarin then the liquid would be transformed into a fine mist when an internal detonator blew up the rocket. Bringing in canisters and then blowing them up may not have lead to this extensive of genocide.
Yes, there could be consequences to the United States for any actions taken. But, as long as Obama holds the line that the use of military force is necessary to respond to the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government; military action is justified and appropriate.
The Senate resolution states a strategy in Section 5 … although it appears to be as similar to the May 2013 US-Russia suggestion … and we know that has failed to materialize.
There are no “good” options, but should we turn a blind eye to chemical weapons and genocide ?
Won’t failure to react encourage these actions happening more frequently … what if the Iranian military used sarin instead of tear gas to quell the protests after the June 2009 elections … would Representative Bachmann, who now claims that several Middle East leaders have told her that there is a way to oust President al-Assad and establish a new, cooperative government, not be demanding US engagement ?
What if Hosni Mubarak or Muammar Gaddafi ordered chemical weapons be used against protesters …
What if Vladimir Putin ordered chemical weapons used Chechnya ?
IMO, this is not about Syria or the United Nations, it’s about chemical weapons … I am glad that President Obama is pushing for action.
Post a Comment
<< Home