The High Price of Non-Intervention in Syria

Spread the love

Loading

Noah Rothman:

The world was privy to a lamentably familiar sequence of events this week. The Syrian regime once again used chemical weapons, this time a potent nerve agent, on civilians. The world reacted with revulsion at the carnage. The political class resolves to “never again” witness such a slaughter. United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley demanded that Assad’s benefactors in Tehran and Moscow acquiesce to some form of punishment, as her predecessor did before her, or else “we may” act alone. But what is it that we are prepared to do, precisely? Not much. The sad fact is that the window in which the U.S. might have helped to positively resolve the Syrian crisis closed long ago. The Obama administration’s desperate effort to avoid entanglement in that confused and bloody civil war only made the crisis worse. Today, the bill for that irrational commitment to non-intervention has come due.

Doctrinally opposed to the kind of preemptive action that George W. Bush took against Saddam Hussein and snakebit by the chaos that followed the collapse of Moammar Qaddafi’s regime in Libya, the Obama administration had no taste for intervention in Syria. The Obama administration’s credibility lay in tatters amid the bodies of the anti-Assad demonstrators that began to pile up in 2012. The principle of the West’s “responsibility to protect” civilians (the “R2P” doctrine”), which led the Obama administration to intervention in the Libyan civil war, had been rendered non-operational by the president’s inconsistency. Only when the Assad regime appeared ready to deploy chemical munitions did Obama even countenance the prospect of intervention.

One year after Obama drew his infamous “red line,” and after a series of civilian massacres, the Obama did appear to commit himself to a perfunctory effort to punish Bashar al-Assad. Yet somehow, the attempt to drum up support for an air campaign against Assad that would have been “just muscular enough not to get mocked,” as one U.S. official put it at the time, but not so devastating as to prompt a response from Russia and Iran failed to convince the House of Commons, which ruled against joining any U.S.-led airstrikes.

After suffering a humiliation at the hands of members of parliament in London, President Obama went to the American public. On the evening of September 10, 2013, he addressed the nation in prime time. He warned of the consequences of ignoring the use of WMDs in Syria. He said that chemical weapons could soon spill over the Syrian border and that American soldiers around the world would one day be fighting on chemical battlefields if the norm prohibiting their use eroded further. Bizarrely, Obama then insisted that he would not act without congressional consent. Also, the Russian government had offered to intervene in the crisis, and Obama told the country that he had accepted Putin’s aid

Obama’s attempt to secure congressional support for a strike on Syria wasn’t some noble deference to the role of Congress. He was simply looking for a plausible excuse for inaction. Obama said that he wanted congressional consent for a strike on Syria, but he didn’t need it. If Congress were to decline to provide authorization, he could just have gone it alone. Moreover, the request, made while Congress was still out of town on its August recess, was apparently not so urgent that it required the legislature to reconvene. It could wait a week or so while Syrian forces dug in and while members of Congress absorbed and internalized the apprehension of their constituents over the prospect of another Mideast war.

Mistrust toward Obama and the ill-defined, “unbelievably small” goals (in John Kerry’s risible phrase) of a Syria campaign had left a sour taste in Republican mouths. In light of that, House Speaker John Boehner sought “meaningful consultations” with the White House. “When we’re working Syria, we’re not working on something else,” Democratic senator Ben Cardin lamented to Politico — Cardin was already thinking about the 2014 midterms. In the end, the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee voted to approve Syrian strikes, but former majority leader Harry Reid never brought it to a vote. Notably, Obama hadn’t asked him to bring a vote on the air strikes: The president preferred to blame Republicans for staying his hand.

Twenty-nine months into the conflict, in September 2013, the window for an effective intervention against Assad was still wide open. The world had not yet become acquainted with the Islamic State. Syrian army soldiers were reportedly demoralized and were defecting to the Free Syrian Army, the most pro-Western rebel group on the ground. With the introduction of both Iranian regular troops and Lebanese Hezbollah, the legitimacy of Assad’s regime was on the wane. The horrific gas attack in the Syrian city of Ghouta that forced Obama’s hand had only further alienated average Syrians from their rulers in Damascus. But President Obama deferred to Putin.

The Obama administration continued to claim a political victory in Syria even as it became obvious that allowing Russia to take the lead was a terrible mistake. Assad’s abuses continued, as did the use of chemical weapons on civilians. Brazenly, Obama-administration officials continued to call the Russia deal a success that had removed “100 percent” of chemical weapons from Syria (as long as you refuse to call chlorine gas a chemical weapon).

By 2014, faced with the prospect of a well-heeled terrorist caliphate larger than Great Britain, Obama expanded the theater of anti-ISIS operations to Syria, encompassing the use of air and ground assets. This time, there was no prime-time address; no overtures to Britain’s parliament or Congress. Aware of the fact, however, that Assad was supporting the “caliphate” by purchasing its crude oil and ignoring ISIS’s fighters, Obama committed covert assets to the fight against Assad. The only reason we know about that is that many of those American-built CIA assets have since been targeted and destroyed by Russian warplanes.

As late as the summer of 2015, the opportunity to topple the Assad regime still existed. In a speech in July of that year, Assad acknowledged that his military lacked the manpower necessary to achieve victory on the battlefield. Squeezed on all sides, the regime was losing territory and falling back to its stronghold around the capital. With no options left by the autumn, Russia intervened militarily in Syria and inaugurated among the most dangerous periods in recent history.

Russian intervention was aimed not merely at propping up Assad but in clearing NATO assets out of the regime’s theater of operations. In the ensuing months, Russia has participated in and facilitated some of the worst crimes against humanity of this century — including strikes on humanitarian targets and facilitating the starvation of whole cities. All the while, Putin and Assad perpetuated a refugee crisis that has destabilized and permanently reshaped the politics of Europe and North America.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

10 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Maybe its time for the Useless Nations to take care of their own problems they certianly hav’nt brought about World Peace thats for suree

Ordered Censored by Trump: Swedish Medical Associations Says White Helmets Murdered Kids for Fake Gas Attack Videos

I dont know I am not a doctor, could be fake news there is tons of it out there. All that oil money makes for some bad players.

I guess Trump’s red line is an actual line. Here we go.

Trump on Twitter, Donald J Trump@realDonaldTrump, regarding Obama’s efforts to gain support for intervention in Syria, back in 2013—just in case anyone has forgotten:

Obama wants to unilaterally put a no-fly zone in Syria to protect Al Qaeda Islamists http://thebea.st/143tmfM Syria is NOT our problem.
1:58 PM – 29 May 2013

We should stay the hell out of Syria, the “rebels” are just as bad as the current regime. WHAT WILL WE GET FOR OUR LIVES AND $ BILLIONS?ZERO
7:33 PM – 15 Jun 2013

What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.
1:14 PM – 29 Aug 2013

Let the Arab League take care of Syria. Why are these rich Arab countries not paying us for the tremendous cost of such an attack?
7:25 AM – 29 Aug 2013

If Obama attacks Syria and innocent civilians are hurt and killed, he and the U.S. will look very bad!
2:26 PM – 30 Aug 2013

How bad has our “leader” made us look on Syria. Stay out of Syria, we don’t have the leadership to win wars or even strategize.
4:28 PM – 30 Aug 2013

How would you treat the Syria situation if president ?” I’d let them all fight with each other-focus on US!
6:09 AM – 1 Sep 2013

If the U.S. attacks Syria and hits the wrong targets, killing civilians, there will be worldwide hell to pay. Stay away and fix broken U.S.
8:55 PM – 2 Sep 2013

What I am saying is stay out of Syria.
9:00 PM – 3 Sep 2013

The only reason President Obama wants to attack Syria is to save face over his very dumb RED LINE statement. Do NOT attack Syria,fix U.S.A.
6:13 AM – 5 Sep 2013

Russia is sending a fleet of ships to the Mediterranean. Obama’s war in Syria has the potential to widen into a worldwide conflict.
3:45 PM – 5 Sep 2013

AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA – IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!
8:20 AM – 5 Sep 2013

President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your “powder” for another (and more important) day!
8:21 AM – 7 Sep 2013

Obama must now start focusing on OUR COUNTRY, jobs, healthcare and all of our many problems. Forget Syria and make America great again!
8:19 AM – 11 Sep 2013

We should stop talking, stay out of Syria and other countries that hate us, rebuild our own country and make it strong and great again-USA!
12:29 AM – 13 Sep 2013

U.S. strikes Syrian military airfield in first direct assault on Bashar al-Assad’s government

The U.S. military launched 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian military airfield late on Thursday, in the first direct American assault on the government of President Bashar al-Assad since that country’s civil war began six years ago.

The operation, which the Trump administration authorized in retaliation for a chemical attack killing scores of civilians this week, dramatically expands U.S. military involvement in Syria and exposes the United States to heightened risk of direct confrontation with Russia and Iran, both backing Assad in his attempt to crush his opposition.

President Trump said the strike was in the “vital national security interest” of the United States and called on “all civilized nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria. And also to end terrorism of all kinds and all types…”

What Was the Legal Basis for the U.S. Air Strikes Against Syria?

As a matter of domestic law, President Trump presumably relied on his Article II powers as Commander-in-Chief. The White House will likely file a report consistent with the War Powers Resolution tonight or tomorrow explaining the authority the President is asserting. Congress has not enacted an Authorization to Use Military Force against Syria. President Trump presumably decided that he did not want to ask Congress for authorization, in order to preserve the element of surprise and to avoid a delay or possible rebuff. His approach contrasts with President Obama, who as a candidate said that “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” When President Obama asked Congress to authorize the use of military force against Syria after Assad used chemical weapons in 2013, Congress failed to act.

As a matter of international law, President Trump does not have clear authority to use force in response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons, and he may not care whether U.S. actions are lawful under international law.

Trump changed his mind–or rather Assad’s atrocities did==I say good for DT.

I hope he will also open his mind and his heart when it comes to issues dealing with protection of our environment.

I’m worried what the motive for the gas attack was. It achieved no military advantage, and certainly gained nothing for the Assad regime in the way of international sympathy or support. I can think of several possibilities:

-A random act of hatred or vengeance, undertaken by a rogue element and unauthorized by the Assad regime;

-A calculated act by enemies of Assad, intended to provoke a response from the United States that ultimately results in a power vacuum or regime change;

-An act authorized by Assad, intended to draw the U.S. into a draining war in Syria, which could leave us incapable of responding to Russian moves in Europe. He might do that at the behest of Putin, knowing Putin will give him full military support.

I’ve got to agree with your moral assessment—the gas attack was an atrocity that warranted some sort of response. But I’m concerned about the dangers. This response could risk pulling us into a disastrous situation involving Russia, while taking our eyes off the more serious and growing threat North Korea poses to the U.S. itself and our Asian allies.

@Greg: Despite assertions to the contrary Assad has clearly gassed civilians before.
He’s brought in the Russians who indiscriminately bomb civilians and hospitals.
Obama allowed this alliance to happen–he should have taken out Assad as he did Gaddaffi and Bin Laden–instead he was swayed by those in the U.S who claimed The Free Syrian Army was Al Queda or ISIS
McCain urged our support–he was right as he was with the surge in Iraq

Obama outlined his administration’s policy to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State (known as ISIS or ISIL).

“To the American people, I want to say we will continue to be vigilant. And we will ultimately prevail,” he said.
When is “ultimately?”
According to the dictionary it is “in the end, in the long run, at length, finally, in the fullness of time, when all is said and done, one day, some day, sometime, over the long haul.”
No wonder his “strategy” didn’t get us anywhere in all his 8 years.
Let’s say that ISIS or al Qaeda really did a PR attack on Syrian people to make it look like Assad did it.
They had to wait until a fixed-wing aircraft went overhead then poison a bunch of children.

Tonight Assad’s main way to get his air forces up is gone.
Now what?
If there is another gassing we will all know it is ISIS or al Qadea.
They are the enemy of Assad, of Russia, of the USA.

I expect Assad might be teaching at a foreign university somewhere if he gets out with a deal.
But if he digs his heels in and only wants to continue as ruler of Syria he’ll probably go the way of Ghaddaffi.
Then ISIS will still have to be dealt with.