The Missiles of April

With the missile attack on chemical weapons facilities in Syria, the U.S., along with Britain and France this time, slapped a new coat of paint on the “red line,” apparently crossed again by the Assad regime. Moved by pictures of civilians suffering in agony following the chemical attack, President Trump called Bashir al-Assad an “animal” and warned that American missiles would fly – which they did.

The only trouble with the red line, first laid down by President Obama, is that it was not only late, but painted in the wrong place. While there was a lot of talk about how the civilized world could not tolerate the use of chemical weapons, especially against civilians, it had tolerated seven years in which conventional military assaults, including shelling, attacks from the air, and the use of the less-conventional but horrendous barrel bombs, were perpetrated on Syrian civilians.

Mr. Assad, an ophthalmologist by training, was initially seen as somewhat progressive after coming to power in Syria. He had a distinctly distorted view, however, of what were mostly peaceful protests during the Arab spring. Convinced they were the work of terrorists planning to overthrow him, he unleashed his military on city populations in his country. Cable news covered all this night after night. CNN had two brave female reporters in the thick of things, while panelists like the late Fouad Ajami wondered how long the West would put up with Assad’s atrocities.

Two years later, President Obama wanted to do something about it following news of a chemical attack, drawing the red line in the sand. Along came the Russians, who said they would make their ally Assad give up his chemical weapons. But he remained in power, and conventional atrocities continued, with the assistance of the Russians, who convinced us they were also helping to fight ISIS.

But the internal civil war raged on in Syria. Hundreds of thousands died, millions more were displaced, many of them drowning as overburdened refugee boats crossed the Mediterranean. The hordes arrived in a largely unwelcoming Europe, though Germany agree to take in a million survivors, while we virtually shut our doors.

OK. After Iraq and Afghanistan, we were war-weary, and Syria was so not our problem. But “not our problem” makes it everyone’s problem. Were we complicit in this tragedy by doing nothing? We insist we are not in favor of regime change, but if any situation calls for it, it’s this one. It’s a real pipe dream on my part, but could we work with the other players in the region to help rebuild Syria after Assad is removed?

The boundaries of Syria, Iraq and a few other countries in the Middle East were drawn by two men, one English and one French, after World War I. They did it armed with a map and rulers. I hope the world can somehow do better by this region going forward, pipe-dreamy as that may sound.

The 2x4 Message

Once in a great while, we find that the time for talk is over, and the time for action arrives. As ineffective as it was from a military standpoint, the attack on the Syrian air base in retaliation for the use of chemical weapons, apparently by the Assad regime, was necessary.

Over the years, I have become tired of all the arguments why we couldn’t do anything about Syria. Here are just a few:

1.    It’s too complicated.

2.    It’s none of our business.

3.    It’s too expensive.

4.    It’s just Iraq all over again.

5.    It’s unconstitutional.

6.    We did nothing in Rwanda while hundreds of thousands died.

7.    It’s supposed to be about ISIS.

8.    Assad’s awful, but it would be worse without him.

9.    We’ll piss off Russia and Iran…and the latest,

10. Trump did it to appear decisive and un-Obama-ish.

But we have been living with the price of non-involvement for six years now, and the Assad regime has only become stronger, with a little help from its friends.  Meanwhile, we have the worst refugee crisis since World War II. I can’t tell you how many nights on CNN were consumed years ago with reports about Assad’s army shelling civilian populations, with the world saying, “Ain’t that a shame?”

Sometimes, the military “messages” we send accomplish little on the ground, but the fact that we send them shows that we’re paying attention. Maybe it’s the 2x4 blow on the noggin that the stakeholders in the region need and even expect from us. It’s often the only language they understand. Syria is a terrible, complicated, bloody mess, but the world will sort it out eventually, simply because we will realize there is no other choice.

Bark or Bite

The good news is, American missiles won’t be flying toward Syria today. The bad news is, we just kissed most of the credibility we had in the bank goodbye with President Obama’s decision to seek approval from Congress for a strike on Syria -- after all the run-up that has already taken place. If Congress says no to an attack, President Obama will have little choice but to follow British Prime Minister David Cameron’s lead and stand the military down.

Does that mean we will have given Mr. Assad the green light to continue to use chemical weapons? We have green-lighted innumerable atrocities up to this point, so we might well wonder what’s different now.

Personally, I feel the time for messaging has long since passed. If Mr. Assad personally gave the orders to use chemical weapons, as we have charged, he is already a war criminal of the first order, right up there with Hitler and Pol Pot. If he sees a green light here and resumes the use of such weapons, that should be a green light for us to send a lot more than a message. We will have no reasonable choice – if we want our credibility back -- but to take out Assad – or arrest him and put him on trial. Will that be Iraq II? Can we remove Assad from power, face down Iran and Russia, and let the remaining Syrian factions determine their own fate (which means fighting it out)?

We cannot effect real change, unfortunately, without getting our hands dirty – and if we’re not prepared to do that, we should indeed stay out of Syria and take our credibility lumps. The last war we can take credit for winning (and not solo credit) ended almost 70 years ago. We’ve been tinkering around with war since then, at a great cost to the lives of our young men, and these days, women.

A Syrian woman interviewed on the radio this morning quoted a proverb to the effect that the louder and longer a dog barks, the less it’s apt to bite. We need to stop barking and bite something, or else put the muzzle on and go back to bed.

Way Too Little, Way Too Late

Now that the infamous “red line” has been crossed – the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons on civilians, President Obama has decided that the United States should supply arms to the Syrian rebels. As I noted to friends yesterday, we seem to have a talent for finding the deepest part of the quicksand and stepping in it – or to be more accurate, sticking our toe in it to see if we can avoid getting sucked in.

All this is still officially pretty vague. According to reports, though, the arms we will supply to the Syrian rebels aren’t necessarily the ones they want: heavy weapons or those to shoot down aircraft.  Senator John McCain, long a hawk on this issue, believes we have to do more, including enforcing a no-fly zone.

The Assad regime has used chemical weapons on four separate occasions, according to our intelligence, killing up to 150 people. That’s awful. But it begs the question of why we didn’t care about the 100,000 or so others who have already died by more conventional means. As if the earlier atrocities committed by the regime were somehow acceptable.

So what is our goal here? Do we want to help the Syrian rebels win, or not? Will these measures really level the playing field? Continuing that analogy, leveling the playing field, at this stage, doesn’t stop the game, and if there is a winner, there’s little likelihood it’s going to be our friend.

I think our real objective should be – or should have been – knocking out or securing the chemical weapons to prevent their use – though perhaps they’ve been scattered to the point where we can’t get to them now.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. If we’re going to change the balance in Syria, there has to be a commitment to do it. I still contend there was a point at which we could have intervened in this conflict early on and accomplished something without having to really go to war. But at this moment, Americans don’t have the stomach for the measures that seem necessary. It’s just too late to play catch-up.

The Really Thin Red Line

I haven’t had anything to say about Syria in a long time, mainly because it’s been too upsetting, and like many in the West, I just wanted to think about other things. But that is a luxury we may no longer be able to afford.

President Obama said a while ago that the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons would represent a “red line” that if crossed, would trigger a U.S. response, though it’s never been made quite clear what that is. It would seem, however, that there is much more evidence of the use of chemical weapons in Syria than there was for the presence of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein, which triggered our launch of the Iraq war.

It’s almost impossible to count the number of horses that have left the barn here. Red lines are fine as far as they go – but what has already happened south of that line? The use of bombs and heavy artillery on civilian populations, Hundreds of thousands killed, atrocities too numerous and horrible to detail, and more than 1.5 million refugees fleeing to surrounding countries – a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions.

So the options that remain are bad ones. The Pentagon has a set of responses ready to be implemented, primarily for the securing of the chemical weapons – steps which may soon be necessary. And the talk of arming the rebels against the Assad regime continues. The European Union has the go-ahead to do so, but it’s a faint green light indeed: it’s simply a failure of European nations to agree on anything, so the current ban on such supplying of weapons will simply expire.

The West worries about the supplied weapons falling into the wrong hands. But it may be a challenge to find the right ones. Those who eventually come to power in Syria will probably not be our friends. The population will never forgive us for failing to come to their aid in their time of need – especially after watching what we did in Libya.

The bottom line is that we are going to be involved in Syria, whether we like it or not – sucked or dragged in kicking and screaming, choose your metaphor. Let us hope and pray that peace talks will eventually succeed and that somebody figures out what to do with the Assad family. But Syria is going to be our problem for a long time to come.

And I’m waiting for someone to talk me out of the idea that it didn’t have to be this way.

Chemical Bashar

There it is: NBC reported today that Syria is loading chemical agents into bombs, presumably for use in a last stand if the regime of Bashar al-Assad is up against the ropes. Well, the ropes are in sight.

What exactly are we talking about here? One analyst reported on CNN tonight that one shell or one bomb dropped in a populated area could kill 18,000 people easily.

President Assad has pledged not to use this stuff on his own people. But if he thinks foreign-inspired terrorist invaders are involved – and his own survival is threatened – it’s believed he won’t hesitate. Some say even if he escapes from Syria, there’s little to stop his commanders from pulling triggers.

Of the “red line” drawn by President Obama against the use of these weapons, Senator John McCain said the administration was giving a “green light” to all atrocities short of their use. That green light wasn’t turned on this week. It’s been on for well over a year – and that’s why we have this situation now.

Some critics say the U.S. has been hyping this threat to provide a pretext for going in, just as was done with the WMD stories about Iraq 10 years ago that proved to be false. But there’s a big difference. President Bush was looking for any excuse he could find to invade Iraq. President Obama has been looking for any excuse he can find NOT to go into Syria. Except now, it seems he’s about run out of them.

Then there is the concern that if used, clouds of gas might waft into neighboring non-combatant countries, or that supplies of this stuff might fall into the hands of real terrorist organizations.

To be as potent as they are, these weapons had to be experimentally tested. I don’t think I want to know on what – or on whom.

It’s clear that we all have to keep our eyes fixed on this region, because the next few days could be dicey. I would say it’s not an exaggeration to suggest that those of us who are good at praying better get started.

A Missed Opportunity in Syria

In opening the “stats” for this blog today and looking at the “all-time” list covering four years, I was surprised to find that No. 3 of the most-read posts – and the only one listed for 2012 – concerned Syria, It was “Send a Message to Assad,” posted in March, and to spare you reading it, the blog suggested that if the West took out just one Syrian tank or one piece of heavy artillery, perhaps with a drone strike, the Syrian president would get the message that the free world disapproved of what he was doing -- that we didn’t want to go to war with him, only that he should stop using a mechanized army to slaughter civilians.


But the talking heads were already on the air, listing all the reasons why the U.S., or any group outside of the U.N. framework, shouldn’t get involved militarily in Syria. We provided the Syrian rebels with communications equipment, etc., but were reluctant to supply them with heavy weapons, because they might fall into the wrong hands, meaning Al Qaida.

Well, that was 20,000 lives ago, and this week we hear that the Syrian forces are now using old Russian cluster bombs against the population. Cluster bombs are typically dropped from the air and open up to release “bomblets” that spread out and are effective at killing large numbers of people on the ground. They are banned by international agreement, which the U.S. has not signed. (One of the reasons given, I read today, is that modern cluster bomblets are smarter and can be individually programmed to hit the right targets. Great...!) I wonder what the regime will use next, when it's really cornered.

The general in charge of the Free Syrian Army was on “60 Minutes” Sunday and said that when the Assad regime is removed, the Syrians who come to power will never forgive the West for standing by while people were being slaughtered. As for Al Qaida, well, he said, they’d accept help from anyone willing to give it to them. So whose hands do we think Syria is going to fall into, exactly, thanks to our having done virtually nothing?

Former Secretary of State Zbigniew Brzezinski said on NPR that we’d be nuts to get involved militarily in this situation, that the region was like a huge pool of gasoline, into which we’d be tossing a match. Well, the pool is still there, and unless something changes, there’s going to be a bigger fire, whether or not it’s our match that sets it off.

It's way too late for us to get involved now. But history, I guess, is going to have to tell us whether we were wise to stay out of Syria, or whether we blew a significant opportunity. As for President Assad, it’s ironic that someone trained as an ophthalmologist could be so blind.

Is Putin's Ego Assad's Nightmare?

News reports coming out of the talks in Mexico indicate that Syrian President Bashir al-Asssad may no longer have Vladimir Putin watching his back.

This shift ties in with a cable commentator’s recent observation about Putin. The same guy who shows off his bare chest to his people, she said, clearly cares what the world thinks of him, and would ideally like to be cast as the hero in this situation.

Heroism might have applied 13,000-plus fatalities ago, but if Putin really is pulling the plug on Assad, at least the ball appears to be moving forward. The question of course is, forward to what?

Personally, I’d be satisfied, as I said earlier, if the Russians offered the Assad family a nice dacha on the Black Sea as an enticement to leave Syria. But in light of what many Syrians and much of the world consider Assad’s war crimes, the challenge, even for Russia, might be getting him and his family out alive.

Which brings us back to “then what?” Removing Assad is only the beginning of the story. There are plenty of Syrians with revenge in their hearts, and many factions will be jockeying for power. I’m reminded of the scenes in the movie “Lawrence of Arabia” in which various Arab tribes are vying for control of Damascus. One tribe has occupied the water works, another the electric power generating system, and very little is working.

That’s quaint compared to the present situation. Rebel forces in Syria now will likely insist on a purge of Alawites – Assad’s sect of Islam – from government. But some of these people clearly are going to be needed to help run whatever new government follows. There are plenty of non-Alawites who have benefited for decades from the current power structure and won’t be happy to see it changed.

Will all these parties have enough sense to sit down and come up with some scheme to share power, or will they insist on fighting it out? Will the rest of the world be compelled to put “boots on the ground” in Syria to keep the factions apart? If that happens, will the West – or the East, for that matter -- be able to resist the temptation to nation-build? As if there aren’t enough concerns, Syria may end up as a sideshow to what could happen in Iran.

Cleaning Up the Syrian Mess: Whose Job Is It?

This week, the U.N. officially declared the situation in Syria a civil war. Which I guess means the Syrian opposition is doing a better job of fighting back against the government that has been murdering civilians with a mechanized army and using militias to slaughter children.

Except maybe it constitutes another excuse for the free world to stand back and let the slaughter continue. Some countries have contented themselves with supplying weapons to the Free Syrian Army and other opposition factions. The United States has limited its support to night-vision and communications equipment.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on Russia to stop supplying the Syrian government with attack helicopters. What color is the pot calling the kettle? Like the United States has never supplied weapons to its allies in the past, right?

In this space a few months and about 4,000 fatalities ago, I suggested the U.S. could send a message to the Assad regime by knocking out one tank or one piece of heavy artillery used by the Syrian army to shell civilian populations – something that says, “We don’t want a war with you, but it’s time to knock it off.” Of course, for every such suggestion, there are 20 analysts who explain why it’s not a good idea.

One expert I heard the other day said that the Obama administration has resisted getting involved militarily because the President doesn’t want to risk a possible foreign policy stumble, which would blemish what many consider his stellar record in this area before November.

There are many who want the Assad regime to remain, only out of fear about what may replace it. But now we have an official civil war. Unlike the one we had here in the 1860s, this will have multiple sides before it's over. Almost everyone agrees there is no scenario under which the Assad family can remain in power – perhaps even remain alive, unless they get out of Dodge. Those standing on the sidelines have resisted involvement for fear of making a mess, but the mess is being made anyway. How has non-involvement helped?

The bottom line is that the rest of the world is going to have to be involved at some level. Unlike Iraq, Syria is said to have real biological and chemical weapon stockpiles. Who’s going to be in charge of those when the current structure collapses?

The U.S. and other Western powers may not have made the Syrian mess, but at some point it will be time to clean it up, and we’re all going to have to get our hands dirty.

Hit Syria Now

None of the choices in Syria is good, but there’s really only one real choice left: military intervention.

It will probably require unilateral action on the part of the United States, but it may not be unilateral for long. I believe other nations will step in to assist, once they are relieved of having to take the first step. Still others will be in the cheering section – some cheering audibly and some silently.

American officials continue to say they prefer a diplomatic solution. That sounds good, but it could be said that all parties prefer a diplomatic solution. However, none has worked so far; in fact, the regime’s attacks on civilians seem to be spreading. Diplomatic language is clearly not one that it understands.

The initial intervention need not take the form of a massive bombing campaign. As I said in an earlier post, a simple targeting of military assets surrounding one besieged town would get the message across. At the very least, it would be a distraction from the regime’s murderous campaign. Assad et al would have to think about the consequences of picking on someone their own size.

The Syrian regime is doomed – it’s just a question of time. But it need not also be a question of thousands more innocent lives lost. The numbers already exceed the losses in Srebenica almost two decades ago.

But then, we did something about it.

Send a Message to Assad

In a previous post, I listed about a dozen reasons given for why the U.S. should not intervene militarily in Syria. In spite of all of them, Sen. John McCain has called for air strikes. He, like many of us, find it unbearable to sit by and watch a mechanized army slaughtering civilians, with no effort to stay its hand.

It has been repeatedly pointed out by top U.S. defense officials that Syrian air defenses are many times more sophisticated than Libya’s were, making a coordinated air campaign difficult. But we have drones over Syria, and part of me wonders why just one drone can’t be sent over Homs – or another similarly besieged city – to knock out one tank or one artillery battery.

Perhaps I’m succumbing to the need for a feel-good strategy just to relieve frustration. A large-scale bombing campaign a la Serbia or Libya might not be advisable right now. But I’m wondering what would happen if the West just did one little thing to send a message to Mr. Assad, to show him we’re not completely paralyzed. Something that says, “We don’t want a war with you, but here’s a little taste of what we could do, and there could be more where that came from. Just stop the murder.”

What’s really sad about Syria is that a year ago, none of the protesters was calling for the removal of Assad, whom many actually considered something of a reformer. All they wanted was a few changes. Assad’s response now has most of the world, in addition to a large proportion of the Syrian people, calling for his removal, and his days are numbered. But how many more civilians will have to die before that happens?

While we keep talking about all options being on the table for Iran – which would obviously require a much more serious military commitment – let’s not be so quick to take them off the table in Syria.