ThinkingEnemy
is back. Unexpected personal and academic responsibilities interrupted my
production of this blog for 90 days. Thanks to those who contacted me to say
they missed it.
I feel like I have awakened to find myself
in a future that looks like some weird version of a bad dream from the past. The
Secretary of State is standing before the world proclaiming he has no doubt
that a foreign leader has chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction and is willing
to use them – actually has used them
on his people. And we MUST act against this moral outrage.
Except the foreign nation did not
use WMD against us, and has not threatened to do so. And no independent
source has confirmed the incident or who did it.
But
the Sec State has the “slam dunk” intelligence – really – if we will just trust
him. Surely no pressure on the Intel community to “cook” any answers, right?
And the Secretary of Defense is
saying that the military is ready to go – except it is not clear what the
military would do. “Punish” a dictator fighting for his life and that of his
minority tribe and allies? Which, in this case, includes indigenous Christians,
and the Russians, and the Chinese. Who
would ever think we could get those three groups to cooperate . . . against
us? Quite an achievement.
Is
the intent of our action to shift the balance of power in the war? In
favor of which side? The collection of lunatics and thugs who oppose the
dictator? This is not about supporting brave
French Resistance fighters trying to oust their enemy and ours, the Nazis. Or even helping
Afghans of questionable pedigree against our Cold War enemy, the Russians. This is more like the Bloods and Crips,
skinheads and Black Panthers, white supremacists, anarchists, drug cartels, and
Al Qaeda all dividing into two sides to fight each other, and asking us to support
one of those sides. What good thing could possibly happen next?
Of
course, there are some differences between the last bad dream and this one. For
example, when the US attacked Saddam, we had a fully prepared, fully equipped,
and fully funded force. The mightiest military in the world hit Saddam with the
strongest blow it had, short of nuclear weapons. That effort ultimately failed because America
did not understand the mess we would inherit if our plan succeeded. This time, however,
we are bearding the lion and his allies in his den with a much depleted force. Two-thirds
of our flying squadrons were grounded last summer. Most of our Army has been told to plan for a
permanent reduction in readiness. And
the Navy has no carrier to commit to this fight today because it had no money
to send a battle group to sea three months ago. So the message we seem to be
sending Assad is: “You better fight this
war and lose under our rules, or else . . . well, just don’t you make me say
what else!”
Another
difference between this “war of choice” and the last is that in 2003 our UN
ambassador was ready to explain to the world how the dictator we opposed
threatened us and the world order. This time our UN rep has said . . . well,
she hasn’t said anything. In fact, where
is our UN representative? Do you really
believe the lame story that she is touring Ireland with family? And the world
press is unable to find her – and doesn’t want to because she deserves her
privacy? Where are the paparazzi when we need them?
Whether
you agree with her or not, you must admit that Representative Samatha Power’s
entire life has been devoted to establishing and maintaining international
norms to prevent atrocities against civilians. So in the crowning moment of her
life – with the US about to use its military to enforce international norms she
has championed -- she is on vacation? I
don’t think so. I suspect that our UN rep is somewhere negotiating something
with someone in secret. Why doesn’t that make me feel better?
Maybe
in the best possible case, UN Rep Power will step forward from behind the
curtain (from where we are leading), and announce Assad’s peaceful departure.
Surely the rebels would not commit any “moral obscenities” that require our severe
frowning as they take control of the country. Surely they would not make Syria
a base to project the hate they have spewed toward the US and Israel in the
past.
A
final weird thought floating though this waking-dream is that maybe Congress
might have a role in the decision to launch a military attack against a foreign
regime that has not attacked us. I’m not going to trot out the old “War Powers”
argument, which the different political parties invoke when it suites their
political ends, and ignore when it does not. Actually, I suspect that many in Congress
are happy not to have their fingerprints on this one. If it works, great – they
called for it. If it doesn’t – tisk,
tisk, they didn’t vote for it. Congressional involvement would delay any action
until Congress opens after Labor Day, or require Congress to convene early for
this specific issue. But I am not
proposing any specific Congressional response, I am just asking, for the good
of the country, should the President really go out on a limb like this without
the support of the nation’s elected officials? In what sort of a dream world is
that a good idea?
Now
here is the last bizarre twist in this bizarre dream, where we threaten an act
of war against a country that has not threatened us, and that fact is secondary
news behind the shaking of Hanna Montana’s furry underwear. Russia and China
must be scratching their heads over our behavior. We do nothing in response to
a million deaths by machete in Rwanda, and take no action when our Ambassador
is murdered in Benghazi, but commit an act of war in response to an unproven use
of chemicals by somebody in an incident that touches no American life. I
understand that there is an academic logic in calling for collective action in
support of international norms. But there is a long stretch between that theory
and the reality of sending troops and killing people on the other side when no
direct national interests are involved. If I were Putin, I would be looking at
the US the way the US looks at North Korea.
What will the Rogue State do next?
(The
logical response for the Russians, by the way, is to build more military force,
draw brighter “Red Lines,” and fire the occasional warning shot. I suspect the
era of “resetting” relations with Russia is over.)
I
guess I am fully awake now. And that means I have to deal with one more reality
of this situation – Assad’s response. Every action against an opponent
generates a response – sometimes a preemptive response. The best case, or
course, is that Assad resigns and departs. He would have to leave behind his
fortune and his people to the tender mercies of the worst of the rebel
opposition. (Remember the rebel who killed and ate a Syrian soldier on
YouTube?) And he would have to trust someone’s guarantee that he will not end
up in the dock facing war crimes prosecution in The Hague. I guess it could
happen.
More
likely, I suspect, would be a decision to double down his bet, maybe even using
whatever chemical weapons he has on hand before he loses them. He is winning
now. He knows that the cost to America of a serious, long-term intervention is
high. And there are plenty of players on his team who might even strike back at
us and our global interests directly. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff has suggested, there will be unanticipated consequences to any American
action.
So
. . . here we are. Our own dreamers with theories about collective action and policies
that create international norms have backed us into a corner where we must put
up or shut up. It is a life or death moment for our decades of talk about
chemical weapons treaties and humanitarian behavior in war. And that makes it a
life or death moment for Assad and his regime and his friends.
There is no “win-win”
solution to this mess. This is not a strategic dream. It is a nightmare.
